CELEX: 62015TA0249
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-249/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known mark — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proprietor of the mark)

29.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 32/20
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN)
   (Case T-249/15) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known mark - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proprietor of the mark))
   (2018/C 032/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: JT (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chili) and the 7 other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO whose names are listed in the Annex to the judgment
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 354/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, JT, and, on the other, Mr Carrasco Pirard and the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal whose names are listed in the Annex.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 March 2015 (Case R 354/2014-2);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders each party to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.