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-372/24: Action brought on 22 July 2024 – K-Way v EUIPO – Gubbini (Representation of a rectangular strip with vertical long sides)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0372

62024TN0372

July 22, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2024/5244

(Case T-372/24)

(C/2024/5244)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: K-Way SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adorno Gubbini (Bagnolo Mella, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark representing a rectangular strip with vertical long sides – EU trade mark No 3 971 561

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2024 in Case R 1748/2023-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally, vary the contested decision in so far as it did not find the use of mark No 3 971 561 proven, for the purposes of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in respect of goods in Class 18, namely, handbags, briefcases, purses, shopping bags, and vanity cases [not fitted], and that on the basis of arguments contained in the present action in conjunction with the proof and documents in the first two stages of proceedings and, without subsequent reference back, uphold the validity thereof;

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and, accordingly, remit the case to the Board of Appeal;

determine the amount of costs to be borne by EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5244/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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