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-85/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Position of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0085

62016TN0085

February 17, 2016
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

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/39

(Case T-85/16)

(2016/C 136/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting of two parallel lines positioned on the outside surface of the upper part of a shoe — Application for registration No 10 477 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Case R 3106/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

in the alternative:

remit the case to the Defendant ordering a renewed examination independent of the judgment of the General Court in case No. T-145/14;

in the second alternative:

remit the case to the Defendant ordering a stay of the proceedings on the outcome of the Applicant’s appeal of the General Court’s decision in case No. T-145/14 to the Court of Justice of the European Union, case No. C-396/15 P, and on delivery of a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in said case to conduct its own evaluation of the similarities and differences between the marks to be compared.

Pleas in law

the Defendant erred in not making its own assessment of the similarities and differences between the Applicant’s disputed mark and the earlier mark of the Opponent registered under EU trade mark No 3 517 646;

the Defendant erred in finding that the conditions under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 were fulfilled.

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