- 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-811/14: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely — Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY — Decision on the appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers — Manifest errors of assessment)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0811
62014TA0811
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
3.4.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 104/44
Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)
(Case T-811/14)(1)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely - Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Manifest errors of assessment))
(2017/C 104/61)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Technopharma and Unilever.
Operative part of the order
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Technopharma Ltd et Unilever NV;
2.Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever;
3.Orders Technopharma to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever.
OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.