- 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-741/21: Action brought on 22 November 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0741
62021TN0741
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
24.1.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 37/48
(Case T-741/21)
(2022/C 37/63)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Bölling, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ZTE Deutschland (Düsseldorf, Germany)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark V10 — European Union trade mark No 14 328 892
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2021 in Case R 2101/2020-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision insofar as it rejects the applicant’s appeal against the cancellation decision in relation only to the goods smart phones, mobile phones and wearable smart phones;
—order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law
—Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 due to insufficient differentiation between invalidated goods;
—Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 due to inconsistent argumentation on the public’s perception;
—Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no intrinsic and inherent characteristic;
—Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no easily recognizable characteristic;
—Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no specific, precise and objective characteristic.