- 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-426/23: Action brought on 25 July 2023 — Chiquita Brands v EUIPO — Compagnie financière de participation (Device of blue and yellow ovaloid shape)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0426
62023TN0426
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
11.9.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 321/63
(Case T-426/23)
(2023/C 321/70)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Chiquita Brands LLC (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann and L. Jones, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie financière de participation (Marseille, France)
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 blue and yellow ovaloid shape — European Union trade mark No 7 497 191
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2023 in Case R 2243/2021-1
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity to the extent the trade mark at issue was declared invalid;
—order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.
Pleas in law
—Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the inherent distinctiveness of the trade mark at issue;
—Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the acquired distinctiveness of the trade mark at issue.