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-508/23: Action brought on 18 August 2023 — Medspa v EUIPO — Hic (ALDO COPPOLA AMO)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0508

62023TN0508

August 18, 2023
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2023/34

9.10.2023

(Case T-508/23)

(C/2023/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Medspa Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Baghetti and P. Burdese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hic Srl (Milan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ALDO COPPOLA AMO — Application for registration No 18 070 755

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2023 in Case R 1625/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the contested decision and, consequently, uphold the opposition to the registration of EU trade mark No 18 070 755;

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and, consequently, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to reassess the likelihood of confusion between EU trade mark No 18 070 755 and the applicant’s opposing EU and Italian trade marks;

in any event, declare that the applicant is not required to repay Hic Srl the costs incurred by the latter in relation to the opposition and appeal proceedings and assessed by the Fourth Board of Appeal in the amount of EUR 1 400;

in any event, order EUIPO and Hic Srl to refund the costs incurred by the applicant in the opposition proceedings and appeal proceedings as well as in the present proceedings before 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.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/34/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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