CELEX: 62019TA0349
Language: en
Date: 2020-10-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-349/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark athlon custom sportswear — Earlier EU word mark DECATHLON — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

14.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 433/45
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear)
      (Case T-349/19) (1)
      
      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark athlon custom sportswear - Earlier EU word mark DECATHLON - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 433/56)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Decathlon (Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France) (represented by: A. Cléry and C. Devernay, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Athlon Custom Sportswear PC (Kallithea, Greece)
      
         Re:
      
      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2019 (Case R 1724/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Decathlon and Athlon Custom Sportswear.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Dismisses the action;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Orders Decathlon to pay the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.