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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll