Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TA0276

    Case T-276/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Julius-K9 v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark K9 UNIT — Earlier EU figurative mark unit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

    OJ C 164, 13.5.2019, p. 48–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    13.5.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 164/48


    Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Julius-K9 v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés

    (Case T-276/18) (1)

    (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark K9 UNIT - Earlier EU figurative mark unit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

    (2019/C 164/51)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Julius-K9 Zrt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and by H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2018 (Case R 1432/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hipercor, SA and Julius-K9.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 February 2018 (Case R 1432/2017-2);

    2.

    Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Julius-K9 Zrt;

    3.

    Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to bear its own costs.


    (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


    Top