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 62017TN0354

    Case T-354/17: Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)

    OJ C 249, 31.7.2017, p. 41–41 (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:
    06/06/2017
    Date lodged:
    06/06/2017
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    31.7.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 249/41

    Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)

    (Case T-354/17)

    (2017/C 249/55)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE’ — Application for registration No 15 214 257

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 1682/2016-5

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

    Pleas in law

    The Applicant submits that the Contested Decision is incorrect and constitutes an:

    —

    Infringement of the general principles of equal treatment, good administration and legal certainty;

    —

    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009.
    Top