EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TA0444
Case T-444/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Invalidity and revocation proceedings — EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Case T-444/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Invalidity and revocation proceedings — EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Case T-444/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Invalidity and revocation proceedings — EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
OJ C 215, 29.6.2020, p. 30–31
(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:
- 13/05/2020
- Date lodged:
- 16/07/2018
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- German
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment - unfounded
- Defendant:
- European Union Intellectual Property Office
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62018TJ0444
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
29.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 215/30 |
Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-444/18) (1)
(EU trade mark - Invalidity and revocation proceedings - EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 215/36)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 522/2006-1), relating to invalidity and revocation proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs. |
