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-677/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Polfarmex v EUIPO – Kaminski (SYRENA)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0677

62019TN0677

October 2, 2019
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

25.11.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/98

(Case T-677/19)

(2019/C 399/116)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada)

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: European Union word mark SYRENA – European Union trade mark No 9 262 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 in Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision in the part declaring the trade mark at issue to remain in force for “cars” in class 12;

alter the contested decision by declaring the trade mark at issue revoked in its entirety, including the goods “cars” in class 12 due to lack of genuine use;

alternatively,

remit the case to the EUIPO;

order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Infringement of Articles 18(1), 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 94(1), 95(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

Infringement of Articles 58(2) and 64(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Infringement of Articles 94(1), 64(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

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