CELEX: 62018TN0658
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-658/18: Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)

21.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 25/46
            
         
      Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)
      (Case T-658/18)
      (2019/C 25/59)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson and R. Wessman, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in colours blue and white (Representation of a pattern of squares) — Application for registration No 1 340 047
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 442/2018-2
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 94 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the Board of Appeal has not made a proper examination, and/or has failed to state the reasons for its decision in relation to the different goods and services applied for;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 94, Article 95 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the subject trade mark is not a repeated pattern or a three-dimensional mark;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Erroneous assessment of the relevant underlying public interest constituting infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council since the Board of Appeal has made an incorrect assessment as regards inherent distinctiveness.