- 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-305/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark LOVE TO LOUNGE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0305
62016TA0305
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 369/13
(Case T-305/16)(1)
((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark LOVE TO LOUNGE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 369/17)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and A. Berger, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Primark Holdings (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and G. Hussey, Solicitor)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 (Case R 489/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung and Primark Holdings.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.
OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.