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 62016TN0280

    Case T-280/16: Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)

    OJ C 260, 18.7.2016, p. 48–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.7.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 260/48

    Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)

    (Case T-280/16)

    (2016/C 260/59)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: GeoClimaDesign AG (Fürstenwalde/Spree, Germany) (represented by: B. Lanz, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie GmbH (Langenhorn, 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: European Union word mark ‘GEO’ — European Union trade mark No 8 331 076

    Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2016 in Case R 1679/2015-4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    annul the mark in question or, in the alternative, the mark for the organisational preparation of building projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular wind power stations and wind parks of Class 35, real estate management and brokerage services in the realisation of projects in the area of renewable energies, in particular wind energy plants and wind parks; the repair and maintenance of wind energy plants in Class 37 and the technical project design of projects in the field of energy supply; the technical project design of projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular the field of wind energy plants and wind parks; services of engineers in the field of renewable energies, in particular in the field of wind energy plants; the drawing up of technical and academic opinions in Class 42;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Plea in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top