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-336/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0336

62016TN0336

June 22, 2016
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 296/35

(Case T-336/16)

(2016/C 296/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO’ — Application for registration No 11 992 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1005/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

uphold the present action;

annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 992 435 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;

order the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law

The applicant maintains that the decision of 6 April 2016 is vitiated by the scant examination of the evidence demonstrating insufficient use of the marks activated by the other party, and by the failure to examine carefully the likelihood of confusion between the marks and the goods in question in the light of all the relevant factors.

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