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 62018TN0534

Case T-534/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)

IO C 392, 29.10.2018, p. 38–38 (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:
07/09/2018
Date lodged:
07/09/2018
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Type of procedure:
Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú

29.10.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/38

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

(Case T-534/18)

(2018/C 392/46)

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’ — Application for registration No 1 915 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 115/2005-1

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 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