CELEX: 62015TA0538
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-538/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Regent University v EUIPO — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark REGENT UNIVERSITY — Earlier national figurative mark REGENT’S COLLEGE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

15.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 151/33
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Regent University v EUIPO — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)
   (Case T-538/15) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark REGENT UNIVERSITY - Earlier national figurative mark REGENT’S COLLEGE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 151/41)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Regent University (Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States) (represented by: E. Himsworth QC and D. Wilkinson, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Regent’s College (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2015 (Case R 1859/2014-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Regent’s College and Regent University.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the Regent University to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.