CELEX: 62017TN0823
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-823/17: Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

26.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/40
            
         Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)
   (Case T-823/17)
   (2018/C 072/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Etnia Dreams SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: P. Gago Comes, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serge Poisson (Limal, Belgium)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Etnik’ — Application for registration No 15 721 301.
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 880/2017-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should, as a consequence of the claim being upheld, give a new judgment allowing opposition No B 2 791 229 and therefore, after the appropriate legal formalities, reject the application for registration of the EU trademark No 15 721 301 ‘Etnik’ for Classes 3 and 35, under Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of the EUTMR, as there is a likelihood of confusion with the Community trade mark No 11 017 241, the proprietor of which is Etnia Dreams SL.
   
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The basis of the opposition clearly falls within Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The defendant should have applied the final subparagraph of Rule 17(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and therefore should have informed the applicant of the defect in order for it to be remedied within the period of two months.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Breach of Articles 10, 41, 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Breach of the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations.