Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2017

Matthias Rath v European Union Intellectual Property Office

EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Case T-258/08


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex Autres Liens
Judgment (OJ)
17/02/2017 Rath v EUIPO - Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
- Trade marks
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:T:2017:22		 24/01/2017 Rath v EUIPO - Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
- Trade marks
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks
Available in :
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Information)
ECLI:EU:T:2017:22		 24/01/2017 Rath v EUIPO - Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
- Trade marks
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
30/08/2008 Rath v EUIPO - Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
- Trade marks
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general - 'Information on unpublished decisions' section)

Subject-matter

Community trade mark – Action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark “DIACOR” in respect of goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 41 against Decision R 1630/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 April 2008 rejecting the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision partially refusing to register that mark in the context of opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national trade mark “DIACOL PORTUGAL”

Systematic classification scheme

1.
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.03 Other questions of substantive law
        4.11.03.03.02 Genuine use of a mark
          4.11.03.03.02.04 Partial use
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.02 Relative grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.02.02 Likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark
          4.11.03.02.02.01 Relevant public
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.02 Relative grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.02.02 Likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark
          4.11.03.02.02.02 Similarity between goods or services
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.02 Relative grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.02.02 Likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark
          4.11.03.02.02.03 Similarity between marks
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.02 Relative grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.02.07 Signs examined
          4.11.03.02.07.02 Likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark
            4.11.03.02.07.02.01 Word marks applied for


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

Information not available

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 30/06/2008

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

24/01/2017


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 70 from 06.03.2017, p.15

Application: OJ C 223 from 30.08.2008, p.54

Name of the parties

Rath v EUIPO - Portela & Ca. (Diacor)

Notes on Academic Writings

Information not available



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment : dismissal on substantive grounds

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Tribunal)

Judge-Rapporteur

Kreuschitz

Advocate General

Information not available

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available