CELEX: 62016TN0235
Language: en
Date: 2016-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-235/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)

1.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 279/30
            
         Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)
   (Case T-235/16)
   (2016/C 279/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG (Reußenköge, Germany) (represented by: F. Döring, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain)
   
      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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GPTech’ — Application for registration No 12 593 869
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 848/2015-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               alter the contested decision and reject the applicant’s trademark application No 12 593 869;
            
         
               —
            
            
               as a conditional application, annul the contested decision.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the Regulation No 207/2009 as the information requirements stated by Rule 17(4) of Regulation No 2868/95 which is dedicated to protect the opponent was not held applicable;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of an essential procedural requirement as the procedure was unfair to the opponent pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Failure of the Office to inform the opponent that prerequisites as stated in Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 were not fulfilled;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Wrong application of Rule 76(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, as the procedure was unfair to the opponent in the light of deficiencies of the e-filing opposition form and of the information provided by the opposition division;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.