- 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-344/21: Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0344
62021TN0344
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
16.8.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 329/34
(Case T-344/21)
(2021/C 329/45)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Plusmusic AG (Dietikon, Suisse) (represented by: M. Maier and A. Spieß, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark +music — Application for registration No 17 482 571
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2021 in Case R 1236/2020-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—partially annul the contested decision insofar as it confirms the other party’s opposition on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) EURMR;
—order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.
Pleas in law
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the visual comparison of the signs;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the distinctiveness of the earlier cross device marks;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the likelihood of confusion.