- 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-328/19: Action brought on 29 May 2019 — ‘Scorify’ v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0328
62019TN0328
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
22.7.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 246/40
(Case T-328/19)
(2019/C 246/42)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ‘Scorify’ UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scor SE (Paris, France)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue SCORIFY — Application for registration No 16 214 521
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 in Case R 1639/2018-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—carefully consider the applicant’s original pleadings and its grounds of action, and alter the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, stating that the applicant’s appeal submitted to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office was justified, thus, the opposition had to be rejected;
—order the other party to bear all the costs paid and incurred by the applicant within the meaning of Articles 134, 139, 140, 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Plea in law
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.