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 62018TN0404

Case T-404/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)

OJ C 294, 20.8.2018, p. 59–59 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201808030702050842018/C 294/734042018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180702595911

Case T-404/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)

Top

C2942018EN5910120180702EN0073591591

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)

(Case T-404/18)

2018/C 294/73Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PDF Expert — Application for registration No 16 257 735

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 in Case R 1813/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

register European Union trade mark application No 16 257 735 for ‘Computer application software for personal computers, mobile phones and portable electronic devices, namely, software for viewing, editing and managing pdf documents’;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

The Board of Appeal erred in not recognizing the special nature of the applied for goods;

—

The Board of Appeal erred in the evaluation of the submitted evidence when it concluded that the applied for mark does not enjoy acquired distinctiveness through use.
Top