This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0101
Case C-101/17 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Case C-101/17 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Case C-101/17 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
OJ C 195, 19.6.2017, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 23/02/2017
- Date lodged:
- 23/02/2017
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- German
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment, Appeal
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Request to review the judgment 62014TJ0082
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
19.6.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 195/10 |
Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-101/17 P)
(2017/C 195/15)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Verus Eood (represented by: C. Pfitzer, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Maquet
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment in Case T-82/14 in its entirety; in the alternative: set aside the judgment in Case T-82/14 and, on the basis of a distortion of the facts in that judgment, refer the case back to the General Court; |
|
— |
order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings in all instances. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The appellant puts forward the following grounds in support of its appeal:
|
(1) |
infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, (1) in particular Article 52 thereof |
|
(2) |
infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, in particular Article 75 thereof |
|
(3) |
infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, in particular Article 76 thereof |
|
(4) |
infringement of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘trade mark applications made in bad faith’ |
|
(5) |
infringement of the ‘fundamental rights catalogue’ of the Court of Justice of the European Union |
|
(6) |
infringement of international law, namely the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property |
|
(7) |
infringement of international law, namely the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights) |
|
(8) |
infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union |
|
(9) |
infringement of Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union |
|
(10) |
infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union |
|
(11) |
infringement of Article 17 of the ‘1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ |
|
(12) |
infringement of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its additional protocols, in particular Article 1 of Protocol No 1 |
|
(13) |
infringement of Article 6 ECHR — Right to a fair trial, in particular relating to distorted or false findings of fact, imputations, false accusations, denigrations, libel, slander |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
