CELEX: 62018TN0312
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-312/18: Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)

201806220411970822018/C 240/663122018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180514565722Case T-312/18: Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5620120180514EN0066562572Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)
   (Case T-312/18)2018/C 240/66Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dentsply De Trey GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: S. Clark, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IDS SpA (Savona, Italy)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark AQUAPRINT — Application for registration No 12 272 407
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 in Case R 1438/2017-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul the contested decision except in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the goods are identical/similar and that the relevant public is specialized in the dental field;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Dentsply in the present proceedings;
         
      
            —
         
         
            alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO that the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred by the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.
         
      
      Pleas in law
   
   
            —
         
         
            Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 2017/1001.