header-logo header-logo

16 December 2016
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Groupe Go Sport v European Union Intellectual Property Office T-703/15 , [2016] All ER (D) 32 (Dec)

The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Groupe Go Sport (GGS) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) relating to opposition proceedings between Design Go and GGS, concerning the application by the latter for registration of a word sign ‘GO SPORT’ as an EU trade mark. The General Court upheld the decision that GGS had failed to comply with art 60 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 which required that a notice of appeal had to be filed in writing with EUIPO within two months of the date of notification of the decision and that a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal had to be filed within four months of the date of notification of the decision at issue.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
A High Court ruling has sent a jolt through the legal profession after a newly qualified solicitor used an internal AI tool to produce court correspondence containing a fabricated legal citation
A significant data privacy ruling has clarified what counts as valid consent under UK data protection law
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
back-to-top-scroll