CELEX: 62017TA0015
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-15/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2018 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark YAMAS — Earlier EU word mark LLAMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

4.6.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/25
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2018 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)
   (Case T-15/17) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark YAMAS - Earlier EU word mark LLAMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 190/45)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dimitrios Mitrakos (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Bakopanou, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Juan Ignacio Belasco Baquedano (Viana, Spain) (represented by P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 (Case R 532/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Belasco Baquedano and Mr Mitrakos.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Mr Dimitrios Mitrakos to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.