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-76/21: Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann v EUIPO — Cirillo (POMODORO)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0076

62021TN0076

February 5, 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

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/34

(Case T-76/21)

(2021/C 110/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann GbR (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francesco Cirillo (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark POMODORO — European Union trade mark No 10 926 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2020 in Case R 715/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

reject the European Union trade mark (EUTM) proprietor’s appeal of 17 April 2020 in its entirety;

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant was not allowed to take into account the EUTM proprietor’s statement of grounds and evidence for his appeal because the EUTM proprietor did not file his statement of grounds within the non-extendable time-limit of four months;

Second plea in law, alleging that the new evidence is inadmissible according to Article 27(4) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;

Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of grounds and the new evidence did not establish proof of genuine use.

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