CELEX: 62012TA0425
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-425/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark e — Earlier Community figurative mark e — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 292/37
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)
   (Case T-425/12) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark e - Earlier Community figurative mark e - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/45
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 881/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.