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 62020TO0083

    Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2022.
    bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
    EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark tagesschau – Partial revocation – Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant – Inadmissibility.
    Case T-83/20.

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:369

     Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 –
    bonnanwalt v EUIPO – Bayerischer Rundfunk and Others (tagesschau)

    (Case T‑83/20)

    (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark tagesschau – Partial revocation – Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant – Inadmissibility)

    1. 

    Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Concept of ‘lawyer’ – Independent interpretation

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 51(1))

    (see paragraphs 16-18)

    2. 

    Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Status of a third party in relation to the parties – Party represented by a lawyer employed by an entity linked to that party – Party able to exercise effective control over that lawyer – Non-compliance with the requirement of independence

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras, and Art. 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 51(1))

    (see paragraphs 19-23, 29, 30, 34)

    Operative part

    1. 

    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

    2. 

    bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH shall pay the costs.
    Top