- 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-90/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband — Prior Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0090
62016TA0090
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
21.8.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 277/39
(Case T-90/16)(1)
((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband - Prior Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002))
(2017/C 277/58)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, and M. O’Connor, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 736/2014–3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Murphy and Nike Innovate.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Thomas Murphy to pay the costs.
OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.