CELEX: 62013TA0282
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-282/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX — Earlier Community word mark IGLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

8.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/13
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)
   (Case T-282/13) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX - Earlier Community word mark IGLO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 190/15)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Iglotex SA (Skórcz, Poland) (represented by: I.-M. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Iglo Foods Group Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Brandreth and C. Hall, Barristers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2013 (Case R 67/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd and Iglotex SA.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Iglotex SA to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.