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-607/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0607

62018TN0607

October 9, 2018
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

3.12.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/62

(Case T-607/18)

(2018/C 436/86)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of an EU figurative mark of a representation of a leaf — Application for registration No 16 709 305

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 21962017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims principally that the Court should:

1.annul the contested decision in its entirety, and

(a)confirm that the mark applied for has the required distinctiveness as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods refused in Classes 3 and 16

(b)annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

(c)refer the case back before the Board of Appeal for examination as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’;

2.order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of the action before both the General Court and EUIPO.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

1.annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

2.refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

3.order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court.

In the further alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

1.annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

2.refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

3.order EUIPO to pay that part of the applicant’s costs which the Court considers appropriate.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001.

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