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-19/22: Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry (Shape of a scooter)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0019

62022TN0019

January 11, 2022
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

28.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/41

(Case T-19/22)

(2022/C 95/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a scooter) –European Union trade mark No 11 686 482

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2021 in Case R 359/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

in the alternative:

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Boards of Appeal for them to set out clearly in which countries the EU mark No 11 686 482 of the applicant is valid and/or has acquired distinctive character and, conversely, in which countries it has not acquired such distinctive character, on the basis of the evidence provided by the proprietor;

in any event:

order the defendant to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union;

order EUIPO and the potential intervener to pay the entirety of the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

Infringement and/or incorrect interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and incorrect assessment of the evidence provided by the proprietor of the EU mark.

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