# C_2017309EN.01003501.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/35

---

Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)

(Case T-456/17)

(2017/C 309/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibryam Dzhihangir (Silistra, Bulgaria)

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: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Djili soy original DS’ — Application for registration No 8 810 558

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03 May 2017 in Case R 516/2011-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition against the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’ and/or to cancel the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition against the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’ and/or to cancel the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’;

| — | in subsidiary, annul the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal dated 03/05/2017 concerning the appeal R 516/2011-5 and to order the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and further to order the Board of Appeal to maintain the suspension of its proceedings until a written, motivated and signed final decision on the appeal for annulment, docket no. 2794/1/2016, is provided to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary, annul the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal dated 03/05/2017 concerning the appeal R 516/2011-5 and to order the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and further to order the Board of Appeal to maintain the suspension of its proceedings until a written, motivated and signed final decision on the appeal for annulment, docket no. 2794/1/2016, is provided to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order EUIPO and DZHIHANGIR Ibryam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and DZHIHANGIR Ibryam to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 1, 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1, 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights;

st

| — | Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no.2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no.2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark;

| — | Mutatis mutandis article 53(2)(c) and (d) of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 in respect of the applicant’s copyright for the picture of the package ‘Djili’ written in red letters on a blue package with the figure of a parrot and in respect of the applicant’s rights to use a trade name for products in the sense of the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Case C-17/06 ‘Celine’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mutatis mutandis article 53(2)(c) and (d) of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 in respect of the applicant’s copyright for the picture of the package ‘Djili’ written in red letters on a blue package with the figure of a parrot and in respect of the applicant’s rights to use a trade name for products in the sense of the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Case C-17/06 ‘Celine’;

Mutatis mutandis

| — | Other relevant legal provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Other relevant legal provision.

---