CELEX: 62018TN0267
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-267/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

201806150841955142018/C 231/472672018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430373711Case T-267/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3710120180430EN0047371371Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)
   (Case T-267/18)2018/C 231/47Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Iceland Foods Ltd (Deeside, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Íslandsstofa (Reykjavik, Iceland)
   
      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 INSPIRED BY ICELAND — Application for registration No 14 350 094
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 340/2017-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul the contested decision;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.
         
      
      Pleas in law
   
   
            —
         
         
            Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation No 2017/1001 by failing to decide the appeal;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Infringement of an essential procedural requirement under Article 72 of Regulation No 2017/1001 in that the Board acted contrary to the principles of procedural economy and fairness in deciding to remit the case for re-examination of the contested mark on absolute grounds, while also pre-judging the applicability of absolute grounds without hearing from the applicant for annulment, thereby acting contrary to the principle of audi alteram partem.