This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TA0258
Case T-258/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Case T-258/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Case T-258/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
IO C 70, 6.3.2017, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.3.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 70/15 |
Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
(Case T-258/08) (1)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Diacor - Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)))
(2017/C 070/20)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: U. Vogt, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Portela & Ca., SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs. |