Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015TA0627

Case T-627/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — Frame v EUIPO — Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark BIANCALUNA — Earlier national figurative mark bianca — Procedural economy — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

OJ C 437, 18.12.2017, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/26


Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — Frame v EUIPO — Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)

(Case T-627/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark BIANCALUNA - Earlier national figurative mark bianca - Procedural economy - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 437/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, M. Borghese and R. Giordano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2952/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bianca-Moden and Frame.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Frame Srl to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


Top