- 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-192/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0192
62019TN0192
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
17.6.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 206/48
(Case T-192/19)
(2019/C 206/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark goclean — EU trade mark No 13 270 046
Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2019 in Case R 991/2018-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul and alter the contested decision;
and, consequently,
—recognise the validity of EU trade mark No 13270046 ‘goclean’, registered on 9 February 2013, in respect of all or some of the goods in Class 11 (Flushing tanks for toilets; Toilet bowls; Water distribution installations);
—order EUIPO and/or the applicant Ceramica Cielo S.p.A. to pay Ceramica Flaminia S.p.A.’s costs relating to the present proceedings as well as the two previous stages before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law
—Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—Interpretation of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—Unfounded classification of the mark as a slogan;
—Infringement and misapplication of Article 95(1) in conjunction with Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.