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 62016TN0234

    Case T-234/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)

    OJ C 243, 4.7.2016, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.7.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 243/46

    Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)

    (Case T-234/16)

    (2016/C 243/51)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

    Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Meissen’ — EU trade mark No 3 743 663

    Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2016 in Cases R 2620/2014-4 and R 2622/2014-4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision in so far as it finds against the applicant, that is to say in so far as the appeal lodged by the applicant for a declaration of revocation and applicant in the present proceedings was dismissed and in so far as, in addition, owing to the appeal filed by the proprietor of the trade mark, the contested decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the application for cancellation was also rejected in that respect;

    —

    in so far as the Court regards itself as authorised to make an alteration: declare EU trade mark No 3 743 663 to be revoked in its entirety — in the alternative or incidentally: refer the case back to EUIPO;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top