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 62024TN0245

    Case T-245/24: Action brought on 11 May 2024 – Alberts v EUIPO – Techtex (Cardboard boxes [packaging])

    OJ C, C/2024/3920, 1.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3920/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/2024/3920/oj

    European flag

    Official Journal
    of the European Union

    EN

    C series

    C/2024/3920

    1.7.2024

    Action brought on 11 May 2024 – Alberts v EUIPO – Techtex (Cardboard boxes [packaging])

    (Case T-245/24)

    (C/2024/3920)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Adina Alberts (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: V. Roș and A. Livădariu, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Techtex SRL (Oșorhei, Romania)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Design at issue: Community design Cardboard boxes [packaging] – Community design No 7 873 187-0001

    Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2024 in Case R 1348/2023-3

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    primarily, grant the application for a declaration that the design at issue is invalid;

    —

    in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration;

    —

    order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of essential procedural requirement and rules of law relating to the limits of the Board of Appeal when assessing the pleas;

    —

    Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

    ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3920/oj

    ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

    Top