Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/29 |

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (VOGUE)

(Case T-229/12)[(1)](#ntr1-C_2014112EN.01002901-E0001)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VOGUE - Earlier Community word mark VOGUE - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the goods - Identity or similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Vagueness of the trade mark application - Article 26(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Partial refusal to register))

2014/C 112/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (case R 1170/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Eduardo López Cabré and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (case R 1170/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Eduardo López Cabré and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., in so far as it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision of 18 March 2011 upholding the opposition for accessories in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the claim for annulment of the decision referred to at paragraph 1 of the operative part. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for the opposition to be upheld solely in relation to umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |

---

[Top](#document1)