Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:85
Date: 2019-02-13
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik) (Case T-823/17) Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish Parties Applicant: Etnia Dreams SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: P. Gago Comes, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serge Poisson (Limal, Belgium) Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Etnik’ — Application for registration No 15 721 301. Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 880/2017-4 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should, as a consequence of the claim being upheld, give a new judgment allowing opposition No B 2 791 229 and therefore, after the appropriate legal formalities, reject the application for registration of the EU trademark No 15 721 301 ‘Etnik’ for Classes 3 and 35, under Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of the EUTMR, as there is a likelihood of confusion with the Community trade mark No 11 017 241, the proprietor of which is Etnia Dreams SL. Pleas in law The basis of the opposition clearly falls within Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; The defendant should have applied the final subparagraph of Rule 17(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and therefore should have informed the applicant of the defect in order for it to be remedied within the period of two months. Infringement of Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009. Breach of Articles 10, 41, 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Breach of the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations. ____________