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-46/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0046

62021TN0046

January 26, 2021
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

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/40

(Case T-46/21)

(2021/C 88/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liu Yajun (Shenzhen, China)

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 the EU figurative mark PREMILITY — Application for registration No 17 899 016

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2020 in Case R 881/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought;

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145.

Inconsistency of the decision with and, therefore, infringement of, the case-law established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 in Case C-115/19 P, China Construction Bank v EUIPO (C-115/19 P, EU:C:2020:469) and in the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020, Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World and Others) (T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T - 98/19, EU:T:2020:231).

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