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-344/23: Action brought on 23 June 2023 — Sergio Rossi v EUIPO — Stefano Ricci (sr 1)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0344

62023TN0344

June 23, 2023
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

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/38

(Case T-344/23)

(2023/C 286/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Rossi SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stefano Ricci SpA (Fiesole, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark sr 1 — EU trade mark No 15 861 248

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2023 in Case R 89/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO and the third-party intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the form of a failure on the part of the administration to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for its decisions;

Misuse of powers and lack of jurisdiction in assessing distinctive character in relation to the earlier marks, on the part of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

Failure to state reasons as regards a decisive point in the dispute (infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and failure to observe the general principles of EU law in the form of the principle of legality, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of good administration;

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625 and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular, as regards the assessment of the distinctive nature of national, not EU, trade marks, identification of the relevant public and the subsequent analysis of the similarity of the signs at issue.

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