Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/89 |

---

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises et Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-839/19)

(2020/C 45/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0002

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1006/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees. |

Pleas in law

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties. |

---

[Top](#document1)