This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TA0026
Case T-26/21 to T-28/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Case T-26/21 to T-28/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Case T-26/21 to T-28/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
OJ C 294, 1.8.2022, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.8.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 294/27 |
Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
(Case T-26/21 to T-28/21) (1)
(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT - No genuine use of the marks - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 294/38)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swatch AG (Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)
Re:
By its three actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2020 (Cases R 2011/2018-4, R 2012/2018-4 and R 2013/2018-4).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Joins Cases T-26/21 to T-28/21 for the purposes of the judgment; |
|
2. |
Dismisses the actions; |
|
3. |
Orders Apple Inc. to pay the costs. |