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-911/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0911

62016TN0911

December 23, 2016
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/44

(Case T-911/16)

(2017/C 053/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TESTA ROSSA’ — EU trade mark No 7 070 519

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and declared the applicant’s mark to be revoked in respect of Classes 7, 11, 20, parts of Classes 21 and 25, Class 28, parts of Class 30, and Classes 34 and 38, and in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division of 17 November 2015 in that regard (however, the part of the contested decision upholding the applicant’s appeal remains unchallenged by the applicant);

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) thereof.

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