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-132/15: Action brought on 12 June 2015 — IR v OHIM — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0132

62015TN0132

June 12, 2015
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

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/48

(Case T-132/15)

(2015/C 311/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: IR (Caen, France) (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘popchrono’ — Community trade mark No 4 177 267

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2015 in Case R 217/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

receive its conclusions;

rescind the decision of 13 February 2015 of the Board of Appeal;

confirm the property rights of the trademark POPCHRONO;

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of the right to be heard;

Narrow interpretation of ‘genuine use’ by the Board of Appeal;

Resumption of genuine use of a community trademark in question should have been examined by OHIM according to pieces submitted by the applicant, including a prior license agreement for more than three months before the introduction of the revocation request;

OHIM’s failure to take account of the contempt of elementary rules of competition and not considered the will of obstruction of a party against the other party.

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