CELEX: 62016TB0664
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-664/16: Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi) (EU trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant — Replacement of a party to the proceedings — Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement — Inadmissibility)

29.10.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 392/29
            
         
      Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)
      (Case T-664/16) (1)
      
      ((EU trade mark - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant - Replacement of a party to the proceedings - Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 392/36)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: PJ (represented by: S., lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, and subsequently by A. Söder, acting as Agents)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)
      
         Re:
      
      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 (Case R 1670/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Erdmann & Rossi and PJ.
      
         Operative part of the order
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The action shall be dismissed as inadmissible.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  There is no need to adjudicate on the application for replacement.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  PJ is to pay the costs.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  [Y]-GmbH, and each party, is to bear its own costs relating to the application for replacement.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.