- 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-266/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0266
62017TN0266
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 202/27
(Case T-266/17)
(2017/C 202/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna, Austria)
Details of the procedure before EUIPO
Party applying for the mark at issue: Applicant
Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘UROAKUT’ — application No 13 854 146
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1221/2016-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—uphold the action and amend the contested decision in such a way that the opposition to the EU trade mark application No 13 854 146 UROAKUT is rejected; in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
—order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal;
—order the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.
Plea in law
—infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.