Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/35 |

---

Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

(Case T-117/16)

(2016/C 191/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |

Pleas in law

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |

---

[Top](#document1)