Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| European flag | Official Journal  of the European Union | EN  C series |

---

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | C/2025/2054 | 14.4.2025 |

Appeal brought on 2 January 2025 by ZR against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2024 in Case T-634/22, ZR v EUIPO

(Case C-1/25 P)

(C/2025/2054)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues, avocat, A. Champetier, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the contested judgment, declare the Appellant’s requests in Case T-634/22 admissible and well-founded, and consequently |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decisions in first instance; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | or, if this is not possible, |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | refer the case before the General Court for judgement, and, in any case, |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the Defendant to bear the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises the following pleas in law:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | The rejection of the first plea is vitiated by errors of reasoning leading to errors in law. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | The rejection of the second plea is vitiated by an error in law, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, misconception of the Appellant’s arguments, a breach of the duty to state reasons and contradictions in reasoning. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | The review of the third plea is vitiated by a breach of the duty to state reasons, by a contradictory reasoning, by an error in law and by a breach of the principles of breach of the principle of restitutio in integrum, equal treatment and of proportionality. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | The lack of review of the fourth plea is vitiated by a breach of the right to judge, the right of defence and the principle of effective remedy. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | The dismissal of the claim of compensation is vitiated by a breach of the right to defence and by errors in law. |

---

[Top](#document1)