CELEX: 62016TA0243
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-243/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (Freggo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ — Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

28.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/42
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (Freggo)
   (Case T-243/16) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ - Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/64)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Freddo SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Freddo Freddo, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.F. Gallego Jiménez and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 (Case R 919/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Freddo Freddo SL and Freddo SA.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Freddo SA to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.