Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/52 |

---

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Nurel v EUIPO — FKuR Property (Terylene)

(Case T-325/22)

(2022/C 284/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nurel, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: M. Anadón Giménez and J. Learte Álvarez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FKuR Property GmbH (Willich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Terylene — Application for registration No 18 088 348

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2022 in Case R 1544/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |

Pleas in law

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The proof of use submitted by the opponent during the appeal proceedings should have never been admitted, and therefore, the contested decision should have considered only the proof of use submitted during oppositions proceedings; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The proof of use submitted by the opponent is not sufficient to prove genuine use for all the earlier goods ‘unprocessed plastics’ in Class 1 on which the opposition is based, and therefore, the opposition should have been rejected. |

---

[Top](#document1)