- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-664/16: Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi) (EU trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant — Replacement of a party to the proceedings — Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TB0664
62016TB0664
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
29.10.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 392/29
(Case T-664/16) (*)
((EU trade mark - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant - Replacement of a party to the proceedings - Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 392/36)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: PJ (represented by: S., lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, and subsequently by A. Söder, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 (Case R 1670/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Erdmann & Rossi and PJ.
Operative part of the order
1.The action shall be dismissed as inadmissible.
2.There is no need to adjudicate on the application for replacement.
3.PJ is to pay the costs.
4.[Y]-GmbH, and each party, is to bear its own costs relating to the application for replacement.
(*) Language of the case: German.
* * *
(1) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.