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 62016TN0664

    Case T-664/16: Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

    IO C 70, 6.3.2017, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    14/09/2016
    Date lodged:
    14/09/2016
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Gearmáinis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú

    6.3.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 70/22

    Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

    (Case T-664/16)

    (2017/C 070/31)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: PJ (represented by: B. Schürmann, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Proprietor of the mark at issue: Applicant

    Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Erdmann & Rossi’ — EU trade mark No 10 310 481

    Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 in Case R 1670/2015-4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the invalidity proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.

    Pleas in law

    —

    infringement of Articles 52, 56, 63, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

    —

    infringement of Rules 50, 55 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95;

    —

    infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 216/96;

    —

    infringement of Article 6 ECHR;

    —

    infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
    Top