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

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

European Union
Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-727/16)
Law
The first plea, alleging a lack of leg…
19

Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-727/16)

Judgment of 21 Feb 2018law://eu/cjeu/2016/t-727-16/para_19@2026-11-12

19It is undisputed that the legal basis mentioned in the contested decision is Article 80(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and that that article was amended by Regulation 2015/2424.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fifth Chamber
Case: T-727/16 · ECLI:EU:T:2018:88
Decided: 21 Feb 2018
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Repower AG
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: P.G. Xuereb
Bench: 3 judges
D. Gratsias, A. Dittrich, P.G. Xuereb
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62016TJ0727

Topics

History · 1 version

21 Feb 2018Reading

Connections

Cited by 5: Adina Alberts v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-245/24); repowermap.org v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-872/16); Dan-Gabriel Pavel v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-114/19); Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-724/18, T-184/19)2 provisions; Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-281/18 P)2 provisions
Cites 23: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs; Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Okalux GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-419/07); Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF) and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (SIDE) (C-199/06); Lagardère SCA and Canal+ SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-251/00); Cargill BV v Commission of the European Communities (C-248/89); Socitrel - Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria, SA and Companhia Previdente-Sociedade de Controle de Participações Financeiras, SA v European Commission (T-413/10, T-414/10); Alpha Steel Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities (14/81); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); González y Díez, SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-25/04); Deutsche Post AG v European Commission (T-421/07); Travel Service a.s. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-72/08); Société des produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-336/14); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 of 21 October 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs; Smarter Travel Media LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-290/15); Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Text with EEA relevance); Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-250/13); Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-197/12); Isdin SA v Bial-Portela & Cª SA (C-597/12 P); Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty; Peter Reisenthel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-53/10); Ifemy’s Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-50/09)