- 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-44/25: Action brought on 23 January 2025 – Wyrębski v EUIPO – Gagatek-Woźniak and Others (BLUE BRAND CHICKEN)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0044
62025TN0044
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/1452
10.3.2025
(Case T-44/25)
(C/2025/1452)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish
Parties
Applicant: Grzegorz Wyrębski (Wróblew, Poland) (represented by: A. Skup, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anna Gagatek-Woźniak (Wieluń, Poland), Artur Woźniak (Wieluń), Jolanta Piesik (Wieluń)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘BLUE BRAND CHICKEN’ – EU trade mark No 13 071 378
Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2024 in Case R 1166/2020-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—alter the contested decision: by dismissing the appeal against the decision of EUIPO’s Cancellation Division of 16 April 2020, No 19 904 C, by confirming the invalidity of the trade mark ‘BLUE BRAND CHICKEN’ in its entirety and by ordering the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO’s Board of Appeal;
—order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.
In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.
Pleas in law
—Infringement of Article 72(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
—Infringement of the obligation to state reasons, stemming from Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1452/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—