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-707/20: Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0707

62020TN0707

December 1, 2020
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

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/63

(Case T-707/20)

(2021/C 28/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sky5 — Application for registration No 17 837 221

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 229/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

reject the objections to registration of the contested mark in their entirety;

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law

The Board of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all;

The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services;

The Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it;

The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark;

The opposition will be devoid of purpose, insofar as it is based on the United Kingdom trade mark, at the end of the transition period, i.e. from 1 January 2021, when references to Member States in the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council will no longer refer to the United Kingdom.

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