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 62017TN0223

    Case T-223/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

    OJ C 202, 26.6.2017, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.6.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 202/21

    Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

    (Case T-223/17)

    (2017/C 202/36)

    Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS’ — European Union trade mark No 3 383 015

    Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2522/2015-5

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    uphold the present action in its entirety;

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 7(3), Article 52(1)(a) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of fundamental principles and basic procedural requirements, such as the burden of proof, the obligation to state reasons for decisions, the rights of defence or to be heard, and the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.
    Top