- 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-882/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0882
62016TA0882
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-882/16) (*1)
‘(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))’
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero and A. Ruo, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Sipral World, SL, to pay the costs.
*
Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.