- 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-304/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 5000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0304
62017TA0304
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
(Case T-304/17) (*1)
‘(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 5000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 655/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
*
(*1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.