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 (C-281/18 P)
The appeal
Substance
The first to fourth grounds of appeal
29

Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-281/18 P)

Judgment of 31 Oct 2019law://eu/cjeu/2018/c-281-18/para_29@2026-11-10

29In the second place, it must be noted that it follows from the wording of that provision that an obvious procedural error, for the purposes of that provision, is a blatant error of a procedural nature committed by EUIPO.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-281/18 P · ECLI:EU:C:2019:916
Decided: 31 Oct 2019
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Repower AG
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: C. Vajda
Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona
Bench: 3 judges
K. Lenaerts, T. von Danwitz, C. Vajda
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62018CJ0281

Topics

History · 1 version

31 Oct 2019Reading

Connections

Cited by 10: Mostostal S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-663/24); Pernod Ricard v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-13/24); Banco Santander, SA and Others v European Commission (T-12/15); PlasticsEurope v European Chemicals Agency (C-876/19); Henry Cotton's Brand Management Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-173/20); Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-169/20)2 provisions; repowermap.org v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-872/16); CEDC International sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-796/16); Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-724/18, T-184/19); Agrenergy Srl and Fusignano Due Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (C-180/18, C-286/18, C-287/18)
Cites 14: Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Fercal - Consultadoria e Serviços, Ldª v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C-324/13); Wenger SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-162/18); Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG (C-28/18); Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) (C-413/06); 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); Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-727/16); Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union (C-100/17 P); Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH v European Commission (C-250/16 P); Gérard Buono and Others v European Commission (C-12/13 P, C-13/13 P); Rendo NV, Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV and Regionaal Energiebedrijf Salland NV v Commission of the European Communities (C-19/93 P); River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (C-144/18); Biret International SA v Council of the European Union (C-93/02 P); European Parliament v Pierre Richard (C-174/99 P)