EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-3/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0003

62018TN0003

January 9, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
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

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/43

(Case T-3/18)

(2018/C 072/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 9 865 651

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 2370/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

admit the action;

annul the contested decision;

confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 9 865 651 ‘ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia