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-900/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0900

62016TN0900

December 21, 2016
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

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/12

(Case T-900/16)

(2017/C 095/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dayaday’ — Application for registration No 13 243 563

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal adopted on 6 October 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2 dismissing in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015;

dismiss the application for registration of the EU trademark No 13 243 563 filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal for all the goods in Class 9 and the portion of the goods in Classes 16 and 24 in respect of which the Second Board of Appeal has dismissed the appeal;

in the alternative, partially annul the contested decision, pursuant to Article 8(5) (EUTMR), in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24 and refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for review in its entirety in respect of the relative ground referred to in the abovementioned article;

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

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