CELEX: 62019TN0187
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-187/19: Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)

20.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 172/45
            
         
      Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)
      (Case T-187/19)
      (2019/C 172/59)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister and R. Jacob, Solicitor)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union colour mark purple (PANTONE: 2587C) — Application for registration No 14 596 951
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 in Case R 1870/2017-1
      
         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 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that the sign lacked inherent distinctive character so that it could not validly be registered as a trade mark;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to find that the sign had acquired distinctiveness through the use made of it by the applicant for annulment and/or with its authorisation.