Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62022TN0141

Case T-141/22: Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1)

OJ C 191, 10.5.2022, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 191, 10.5.2022, p. 30–31 (GA)

Date of document:
10/03/2022
Date lodged:
10/03/2022
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Defendant:
European Union Intellectual Property Office
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

10.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/35

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1)

(Case T-141/22)

(2022/C 191/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sport1 GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: J. Krekel and C. Otto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société française du radiotelephone — SFR (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SFR SPORT1 in red, white and black — Application for registration No 16 161 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2021 in Case R 2329/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Top