This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0231
Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
OJ C 200, 11.6.2018, p. 46–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
(Case T-231/18)
2018/C 200/58Language in which the application was lodged: EnglishParties
Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Romiţan, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Djili — Application for registration No 15 497 662
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 in Case R 1902/2017-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision; |
— |
reject Lupu Victor’s appeal; |
— |
order the opponent and the appellant Lupu Victor to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law
— |
The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was an aural similarity between the signs; |
— |
The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the conceptual comparison had no relevance in the case. |