EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TJ0207
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012. # EyeSense AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ISENSE - Earlier national word mark EyeSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. # Case T-207/11.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012.
EyeSense AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ISENSE - Earlier national word mark EyeSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-207/11.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012.
EyeSense AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ISENSE - Earlier national word mark EyeSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-207/11.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2012:121
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM – Osypka Medical (ISENSE)
(Case T-207/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ISENSE — Earlier national word mark EyeSense — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17-18, 42-47)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 (Case R 1098/2010‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between EyeSense AG and Osypka Medical GmbH. |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders EyeSense AG to pay the costs. |