Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

European Union
Arrigo Cipriani v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-343/14)
Judgment
Law
Second plea in law, alleging infringem…
25

Arrigo Cipriani v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-343/14)

law://eu/cjeu/2014/t-343-14/para_25@2026-11-13

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

Key facts

Court: General Court · Sixth Chamber
Case: T-343/14 · ECLI:EU:T:2017:458
Decided: 29 Jun 2017
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: O. Spineanu-Matei
Bench: 3 judges
G. Berardis, S. Papasavvas, O. Spineanu-Matei
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014TJ0343

Topics

History · 1 version

29 Jun 2017Reading

Judgment of 29 Jun 2017

25The concept of ‘bad faith’ referred to in Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 is not defined, delimited or even described in any way in the legislation (judgment of 1 February 2012, Carrols v OHIM — Gambettola (Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL), T‑291/09, EU:T:2012:39, paragraph 44).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Connections

Cited by 24: Super Brand Licencing (SBG) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-303/25); Lisa Leone and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-64/25); European Lotto and Betting ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-375/24); Kartroi LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-47/24); Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-128/24); Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-121/24); Coinbase, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-46/24); Techtex SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-327/24); Rosalia Vila Tobella v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-118/24); Sven Butzkies-Schiemann v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1127/23); ChiCom Marketing GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-533/23); Ümit İlbay v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-514/23); Dekoback GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-166/23); Sophienwald AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-597/22); Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, SAU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-777/22); VF International Sagl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-639/22); Athlet Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-650/22); Good Services ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-382/22); Good Services ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-383/22); Good Services ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-381/22); Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-703/21); Magnetec GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-168/21); Ladislav Zdút v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-250/21)2 provisions; Dermavita Company SARL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-372/20)
Cites 13: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); SA.PAR. Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-321/10); Gugler France v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-674/13); Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-61/09); Karl-May-Verlag GmbH, formerly Karl May Verwaltungs- und Vertriebs- GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-501/13); Peeters Landbouwmachines BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-33/11); Pangyrus Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-257/11); Carrols Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-291/09)2 provisions; Vita Phone GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-318/13); Edwin Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-263/09 P); Elio Fiorucci v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-165/06); Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (C-529/07)