CELEX: 62015TA0333
Language: en
Date: 2017-06-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-333/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Josel v EUIPO — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NN — Earlier national word mark NN — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing by elements altering the distinctive character)

21.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 277/35
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Josel v EUIPO — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)
   (Case T-333/15) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NN - Earlier national word mark NN - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing by elements altering the distinctive character))
   (2017/C 277/51)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Josel, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented: initially by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, and subsequently by J. Güell Serra, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented: initially by E. Morée and A. Janssen, and subsequently by A. Janssen, R. Sjoerdsma and C. Jehoram, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2015 (Case R 1531/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Josel and Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.