Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TA0288

Case T-288/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT — Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

OJ C 406, 2.12.2019, p. 30–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

2.12.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/30


Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)

(Case T-288/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT - Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Southwark, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Yates, Solicitor, and N. Zweck, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2018 (Case R 1658/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


Top