Celeson | Decision 2644816

OPPOSITION No B 2 644 816 Celesio Ag, Neckartalstr. 155, D-70376 Stuttgart, Germany (opponent), represented by Unit4 IP Rechtsanwälte, Jägerstrasse 40, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany (professional representative) a g a i n s t Asahi Intecc Co. Ltd, 1703 Wakita-cho, Moriyama-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi  463-0024, Japan (holder), represented by Winter Brandl Fürniss Hübner Röss Kaiser Polte Partnerschaft Mbb Patent- Und Rechtsanwaltskanzlei, Bavariaring 10,

D’ARISTI XTABENTÚN Licor de Anís y Miel de Abeja | Decision 2027228 – ARESTI CHILE WINE, S.A. v. CASA D’ARISTI S.A. DE C.V.

OPOSICIÓN Nº B 2 027 228 Arsti Chile Wine S.A., Avda. Santa María, Nº 6350 Vitacura, Santiago, Chile (parte oponente), representada por Esquivel, Martin, Pinto & Sessano European Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Calle de Velázquez, 3 – piso 3, 28001 Madrid, España (representante profesional) c o n t r a Casa D'aristi S.A. de C.V., 42 Tablaje 14187,

Deaura | Decision 2348152 – Dermapharm AG v. Loutron Services Limited

WIDERSPRUCH Nr. B 2 348 152 Dermapharm AG, Lil-Dagover-Ring 7, 82031 Grünwald, Deutschland (Widersprechende), vertreten durch Dr. Kunz-Hallstein Rechtsanwälte, Galeriestr. 6A, 80539 München, Deutschland (zugelassene Vertreter) g e g e n Loutron Services Limited, Geneva Places, Waterfront Drive, P.O. Box 3469, Road Town, Tortola 1110, Britische Jungferninseln (Anmelderin), vertreten durch Patent Agency KDK, Dzerbenes iela 27, Riga, 1006, Lettland

MODE | Decision 2335712 – SOCIETE D’APPLICATION DES METHODES MODERNES D’ECLAIRAGES ELECTRIQUES SAMMODE (Société anonyme) v. Scolmore (International) Limited

OPPOSITION n° B 2 335 712 Société d'application des Méthodes Modernes d'Eclairages Electriques Sammode (Société Anonyme), 24 Rue des Amandiers, 75020 Paris, France (opposante), représentée par Cabinet Plasseraud, 66, rue de la Chaussée d'Antin, 75440 Paris Cedex 09, France (mandataire agréé) c o n t r e Scolmore (International) Limited, 1 Scolmore park, Landsberg Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth

RATIO | Decision 2381146 – Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH v. EHLIS, S.A.

OPPOSITION No B 2 381 146 Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH, Barentsstr. 17, 53881 Euskirchen, Germany (opponent), represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Im Zollhafen 24, 50678, Cologne, Germany (professional representative) a g a i n s t Ehlis, S.A., Calle Sevilla s/n, Zona Industrial Noreste, 08007 Sant Andreu de la Barca, Spain (applicant), represented by J.D. Núñez Patentes y marcas, S.L., Rambla de

MAT | Decision 2385352 – MAT Mischanlagentechnik GmbH v. “МАТ” ООД

OPPOSITION No B 2 385 352 Mat Mischanlagentechnik GmbH, Zweigniederlassung der Bauer Maschinen GmbH, Illerstraße 6, 87509 Immenstadt, Germany (opponent), represented by Weber & Heim Patentanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft Mbb, Irmgardstr. 3 81479 München, Germany (professional representative) a g a i n s t “Мат” ООД, ж.к. Гарова Промишлена ЗОНА, 7200 Разград, Bulgaria (applicant), represented by Zlatarevi Patent and Trademark, Dianabad 31b,

SOUND OF TOMORROW | Decision 2547464 – ID&Q Licenties B.V. v. AH Gastro Consult GmbH & Co. KG

OPPOSITION No B 2 547 464 ID&Q Licenties B.V., Overhoeksplein 54 Floor 13&14, 1031 KS Amsterdam, the Netherlands (opponent), represented by Loyens & Loeff Advocaten-Avocats, Neerveldstraat 101-103, 1200 Brussels, Belgium (professional representative) a g a i n s t AH Gastro Consult GmbH & Co. KG, Caspar-Merian-Straße 19, 97877 Wertheim, Germany (applicant), represented by Waller-IP, Patent- und Rechtsanwaltsbüro Stefan Waller, Landshuter Allee 10, 80637

WE=LV2 | Decision 2513599 – WE Brand S.a.r.l. v. Maij Entertainment LLC

OPPOSITION No B 2 513 599 WE Brand S.à.r.l., 31-33 Avenue Pasteur, 2311 Luxembourg, Luxembourg (opponent), represented by Nauta Dutilh N.V., Strawinskylaan 1999, 1077 XV Amsterdam, The Netherlands (professional representative) a g a i n s t Maij Entertainment LLC, 80 Horse Country Lane, Walton, New York 13856, United States of America (applicant), represented by Mishcon de Reya Llp, Africa