- 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-758/21: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Dorsum v EUIPO — id Quantique (Clavis) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Clavis — Earlier EU word mark CLAVIS — Failure to identify the earlier trade mark in the notice of opposition — Conditions for admissibility of the opposition)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TA0758
62021TA0758
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
6.3.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 83/22
(Case T-758/21) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Clavis - Earlier EU word mark CLAVIS - Failure to identify the earlier trade mark in the notice of opposition - Conditions for admissibility of the opposition)
(2023/C 83/27)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary), (represented by: G. Hajdu, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: id Quantique SA (Carouge, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)
Re:
By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks alteration or annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2021 (Case R 189/2021-1).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
3.Declares that the intervener is to bear its own costs.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.
* Language of the case: English.
ECLI:EU:C:2023:140