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-832/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0832

62017TN0832

December 22, 2017
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

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

(Case T-832/17)

(2018/C 063/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘achtung!’ — International registration No 1 297 443

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 in Case R 490/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4);

amend the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4) in such a way that international registration No 1 297 443 ‘achtung!’ (word/figure) is protected for the European Union;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The defendant, it submits, erred in law in assessing the distinctive character of the trade mark under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and infringed the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

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