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 62020TN0531

Case T-531/20: Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)

IO C 339, 12.10.2020, p. 31–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.10.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/31

Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)

(Case T-531/20)

(2020/C 339/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Heremans and L. Depypere, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolf Lubricants GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROLF — International registration designating the European Union No 1 286 835

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 1958/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that its action is held to be well-founded and, consequently its opposition upheld;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Top