Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/49 |

---

Action brought on 27 September 2017 – China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)

(Case T-665/17)

(2017/C 402/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: A. Carboni, J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupement des cartes bancaires (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark figurative mark containing the word element ‘CCB’ — Application for registration No 13 359 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 2265/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision and remit the EU trade mark application no. 13 359 609 to the EUIPO to allow it to proceed to registration; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO and any intervening parties in this Appeal to pay their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in Case R 2265/2016-1 and of Opposition B 2 524 422 before the Opposition Division. |

Pleas in law

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation EUTMR by basing its decision on reasons and evidence on which the Applicant had no opportunity to present its comments; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) EUTMR by taking account of facts, evidence and arguments not submitted by either party and evidence which was not filed in the case; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as a result of the above infringements and also by incorrectly applying the guidance of the Courts as to how to assess the likelihood of confusion. |

---

[Top](#document1)