Choose the experimental features you want to try

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