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 62018TN0607

    Case T-607/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

    OJ C 436, 3.12.2018, p. 62–62 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    3.12.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 436/62

    Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

    (Case T-607/18)

    (2018/C 436/86)

    Language of the case: Swedish

    Parties

    Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of an EU figurative mark of a representation of a leaf — Application for registration No 16 709 305

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 21962017-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims principally that the Court should:

    1.

    annul the contested decision in its entirety, and

    (a)

    confirm that the mark applied for has the required distinctiveness as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods refused in Classes 3 and 16

    (b)

    annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

    (c)

    refer the case back before the Board of Appeal for examination as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’;

    2.

    order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of the action before both the General Court and EUIPO.

    In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

    1.

    annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

    2.

    refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

    3.

    order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court.

    In the further alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

    1.

    annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

    2.

    refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

    3.

    order EUIPO to pay that part of the applicant’s costs which the Court considers appropriate.

    Plea in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001.
    Top