CELEX: 62018TN0160
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-160/18: Action brought on 02 March 2018 — Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI)

30.4.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 152/57
            
         Action brought on 02 March 2018 — Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI)
   (Case T-160/18)
   (2018/C 152/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vassiliki Theodorakidi (Veroia, Greece) (represented by: F. Ikonomidou Ikonomou, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vassiliki Benopoulou (Kifissia, Greece).
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark THYREOS VASSILIKI — EU trade mark No 8 206 963
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 40/2017-4.
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and, consequently, reject the invalidity action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs, including the costs incurred before the Court, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Cancellation Division.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal of EUIPO erred in law when stating that the other party is ‘widely known’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the obligation to state reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal of EUIPO erred when accepting that there should be no restriction as to the goods/services the invalidity should be accepted for.