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-493/20: Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0493

62020TN0493

July 28, 2020
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 320/27

(Case T-493/20)

(2020/C 320/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andrzej Koc (Kobyłka, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark SFORA WEAR — Application for registration No 15 853 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2030/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 2 834 862, granting in part the EU trade mark No 15 853 245 SFORA WEAR (word), to distinguish specific goods in Classes 18 and 25;

order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Inadequate assessment of the evidence of use of the opposing mark, and infringement of Article 10(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and breach of the classification criteria laid down in the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 (in its most recent version), together with the Explanatory Notes and Class Analysis prepared by WIPO.

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