CELEX: 62018CN0528
Language: en
Date: 2018-08-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-528/18 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2018 by Outsource Professional Services Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

10.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 445/4
            
         
      Appeal brought on 13 August 2018 by Outsource Professional Services Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
      (Case C-528/18 P)
      (2018/C 445/05)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  confirm the decision of the Fourth board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in case number R 611/2015-4;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd to pay the costs including the costs necessarily incurred by the EUTM owner/successor/appellant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appeal is based on the infringement of Union Law by the General Court, namely Article 52(1)b of Council Regulation 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark, last amended by Council Regulation 2015/2424 (2).
      The General Court erred in law by finding that the EUTM owner/predecessor was acting in bad faith when it filed an application to register the trade mark No 006035547. The General Court misinterpreted the concept of bad faith. There is nothing dishonest or unethical about using descriptive wording to describe a business. Hence the registration as a trademark was not in bad faith.
      
         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).
      
         (2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).