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
Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-194/17 P)
Forms of order sought by the parties b…
33

Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-194/17 P)

Judgment of 31 Jan 2019law://eu/cjeu/2017/c-194-17/para_33@2026-11-10

33EUIPO contends that the Court should:– dismiss the appeal; and– order the appellant to pay the costs.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-194/17 P · ECLI:EU:C:2019:80
Decided: 31 Jan 2019
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Georgios Pandalis
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: M. Safjan
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
M. Vilaras, J. Malenovský, L. Bay Larsen, M. Safjan, D. Šváby
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62017CJ0194

Topics

History · 1 version

31 Jan 2019Reading

Connections

Cited by 21: Effeemme Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-377/25); Heinz Thomas Altendorfer v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-297/25); Land Oberösterreich v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-46/25); Huda Beauty Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-333/24); Quality is Our Recipe LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-168/24); Tes Electrical Electronic Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-517/23); Alfonso López-Ibor Aliño v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-672/22); Georgi Kirov v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-149/23); Oriflame Cosmetics AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-74/23); Feed SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-27/23); Transgourmet Ibérica, SAU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-102/22); Hecht Pharma GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-346/21); Standard International Management LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-768/20); Beveland, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-29/21); Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-500/20); M. I. Industries, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1/20); Kneissl Holding GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-65/20); Dovgan GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-142/19); Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-577/19); Outsource Professional Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-528/18); Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-668/17 P)
Cites 14: 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); W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH and Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse (C-689/15); Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-15/16); Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-252/15); Kenzo Tsujimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-85/16 P, C-86/16 P); Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH (C-495/07); Pensa Pharma, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-442/15); Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (Text with EEA relevance); Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-32/17); Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-194/17); Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-482/15 P); Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01); Les Éditions Albert René SARL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-16/06)