- 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-208/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0208
62017TA0208
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
(Case T-208/17) (*1)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1002/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.
*
(*1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.