CELEX: 62018TN0521
Language: en
Date: 2018-08-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-521/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

29.10.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 392/34
            
         
      Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
      (Case T-521/18)
      (2018/C 392/42)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC BROKERAGE — European Union trade mark No 3 812 195
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2186/2014-5.
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.