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-670/22: Action brought on 4 November 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Device of a sun with arabic characters)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0670

62022TN0670

November 4, 2022
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

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/40

(Case T-670/22)

(2023/C 7/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of a sun with arabic characters) — European Union trade mark No 18 186 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2022 in Case R 272/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

The Board erred in finding that the compared signs are visually similar to a high degree;

the Board was wrong to focus its conclusions regarding the visual comparison of the signs exclusively on the Arabic language wording and the stylised sun devices contained in the conflicting marks;

the Board assessed the level of attention of the relevant public in a contradictory manner throughout the decision and therefore infringed its obligations under the first sentence of Art. 94(1) 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