CELEX: 62017TN0682
Language: en
Date: 2017-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-682/17: Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)

27.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 402/52
            
         Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)
   (Case T-682/17)
   (2017/C 402/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien’ — EU trade mark No 8 216 343
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2085/2016-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.