- 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-259/24: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2025 – Kudsi Alattar v EUIPO – Medelhavet Gross (Chamain) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Chamain – Earlier national word mark CHAMAIN – Admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Relative ground for invalidity – Comparison of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/ 1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TB0259
62024TB0259
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/2088
14.4.2025
(Case T-259/24)
(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Chamain - Earlier national word mark CHAMAIN - Admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Relative ground for invalidity - Comparison of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/ 1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/2088)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Tarek Kudsi Alattar (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez and Y. Hernández Viñes, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Medelhavet Gross AB (Laholm, Sweden)
Re:
By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 February 2024 (joined cases R 1258/2023-2 and R 1588/2023-2).
Operative part of the order
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
2.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
—
(1) OJ C C/2024/3923, 1.7.2024.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2088/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—