- 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-231/21: Action brought on 30 April 2021 — Praesidiad/EUIPO — Zaun (Post)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0231
62021TN0231
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
12.7.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 278/50
(Case T-231/21)
(2021/C 278/70)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Praesidiad Holding (Zwevegem, Belgium) (represented by: M. Rieger-Janson and D. Op de Beeck, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zaun Ltd (Wolverhampton, United Kingdom)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Design at issue: European Union design No 127 204-0001 (Post)
Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2021 in Case R 2068/2019-3
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—maintain the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 19 July 2019 rejecting the application for declaration of invalidity of the contested design;
—order EUIPO (and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the other party as intervener) to pay the costs of the proceedings and pay those of the design holder.
Pleas in law
—The Board misapplied the judgment of DOCERAM in its interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as it failed to properly identify the product;
—The Board misapplied the judgment of DOCERAM in its interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as it failed to take into account evidence of objective circumstances indicative of considerations other than technical function;
—The Board misapplied the judgment of DOCERAM in its interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as it failed to apply the objective circumstances test, instead indicating that subjective evidence of the design circumstances was required;
—The Board failed to give reasons, contrary to Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, as to why the evidence of the design holder was dismissed as irrelevant and/or unfounded;
—The Board wrongly imposed the evidential burden of proof on the design holder, rather than the invalidity applicant.