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 62016TA0777

Case T-777/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden — Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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. 31–31 (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 437/31


Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)

(Case T-777/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 437/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 181/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


Top