Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62024TN0086

Case T-86/24: Action brought on 15 February 2024 — Vinatis v EUIPO — Vinites (VINATIS)

OJ C, C/2024/2329, 2.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2329/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2329/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/2329

2.4.2024

Action brought on 15 February 2024 — Vinatis v EUIPO — Vinites (VINATIS)

(Case T-86/24)

(C/2024/2329)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vinatis (Annecy, France) (represented by: J. Canlorbe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vinites NV (Ms Haarlem, Netherlands)

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 VINATIS — Application for registration No 18 274 852

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2023 in Case R 2110/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

partially annul the contested decision insofar as it declared that the earlier mark was genuinely used for certain services in Classes 35 and 41;

—

reject the opposition in its entirety;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the assessment of evidence of genuine use for services in Class 35;

—

Infringement of Articles 94 and 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the assessment of evidence of genuine use for services in Class 41.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2329/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

Top