EU & Human Rights

M. I. Industries v EUIPO - Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended) (Judgment)

[2017] EUECJ T3016Court of Justice of the European Union (including the General Court)2017

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All EU & Human Rights cases →

“(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY — Genuine use o…”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of M. I. Industries v EUIPO - Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended) (Judgment). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More EU & Human Rights cases

CIOROIANU v. ROMANIA - 24621/18 (Judgment : Article 2 - Right to life : Fourth Section Committee) French Text

[2023] ECHR 93

YAKOVLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 46371/19 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 31

MILSHTEYN v. RUSSIA - 1377/14 (Judgment : Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association : Third Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 84

ARSENYAN v. ARMENIA - 45197/14 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 85

DARAIBOU v. CROATIA - 84523/17 (Judgment : Life-threatening fire in police station detention centre causing the applicant serious injuries and the deaths of three migrants : Second Section)

[2023] ECHR 40

ASHIROV AND INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL v. RUSSIA - 25246/07 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section Committee)

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.