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 62018TN0535

    Case T-535/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

    OJ C 392, 29.10.2018, p. 39–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    29.10.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 392/39

    Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

    (Case T-535/18)

    (2018/C 392/47)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’s’ — Application for registration No 3 263 589

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 60/2007-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(4) 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 in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(3) of the MarkenG on the basis of an unfair advantage taken of distinctive character or repute or of detriment to distinctive character or repute;

    —

    Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.
    Top