# C_2016279EN.01003001.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/30

---

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)

(Case T-235/16)

(2016/C 279/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG (Reußenköge, Germany) (represented by: F. Döring, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GPTech’ — Application for registration No 12 593 869

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 848/2015-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision and reject the applicant’s trademark application No 12 593 869; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision and reject the applicant’s trademark application No 12 593 869;

| — | as a conditional application, annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

as a conditional application, annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the Regulation No 207/2009 as the information requirements stated by Rule 17(4) of Regulation No 2868/95 which is dedicated to protect the opponent was not held applicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the Regulation No 207/2009 as the information requirements stated by Rule 17(4) of Regulation No 2868/95 which is dedicated to protect the opponent was not held applicable;

| — | Infringement of an essential procedural requirement as the procedure was unfair to the opponent pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of an essential procedural requirement as the procedure was unfair to the opponent pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights.

| — | Failure of the Office to inform the opponent that prerequisites as stated in Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 were not fulfilled; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure of the Office to inform the opponent that prerequisites as stated in Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 were not fulfilled;

| — | Wrong application of Rule 76(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, as the procedure was unfair to the opponent in the light of deficiencies of the e-filing opposition form and of the information provided by the opposition division; |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrong application of Rule 76(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, as the procedure was unfair to the opponent in the light of deficiencies of the e-filing opposition form and of the information provided by the opposition division;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---