Case T-179/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — 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)

• 62016TA0179

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

Case T-179/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — 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)

• 62016TA0179

Cited paragraphs only

9.9.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/36

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)

(Case T-179/16 RENV) ( 1 )

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - 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)

(2019/C 305/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2905/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;

2.Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016 .

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant