Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0117

Case T-117/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

OJ C 191, 30.5.2016, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
21/03/2016
Date lodged:
21/03/2016
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

30.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/35

Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

(Case T-117/16)

(2016/C 191/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

—

The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration;

—

Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Top