CELEX: 62016TA0777
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-777/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden — Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL — 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))

18.12.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 437/31
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)
   (Case T-777/16) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - 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)))
   (2017/C 437/37)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 181/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.