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-727/20: Action brought on 7 December 2020 — Kirimova v EUIPO

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0727

62020TN0727

December 7, 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

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/36

(Case T-727/20)

(2021/C 163/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigar Kirimova (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision of 30 September 2020 of the Executive Director of EUIPO;

order EUIPO to exempt the applicant from the nationality requirement pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (thereafter ‘EUTMR’);

order EUIPO to enter the applicant to the list of Professional Representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR;

order EUIPO to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision No ER 93419-2020 of the Executive Director of the EUIPO of 30 September 2020, concerning the request of the applicant for entry on the list of professional representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR and for an exemption pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) EUTMR

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 (4) EUTMR due to the failure to interpret and implement it in the light of basic principles of the EU and the fundamental prohibition of discrimination.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of sound administration by abuse of discretional power.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 94 and 97 EUTMR by infringement of the right to be heard.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the evidence supporting the case.

* Language of the case: English.

OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

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