EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0259
Case T-259/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
Case T-259/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
Case T-259/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
OJ C 221, 25.6.2018, 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)
Case T-259/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
(Case T-259/18)
2018/C 221/41Language in which the application was lodged: EnglishParties
Applicant: Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg sp. z o.o. (Tarnobrzeg, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EuroChem Agro GmbH (Mannheim, Germany).
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Unifoska — Application for registration No 015017841
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 1503/2017-5.
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or |
— |
alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 01501784 ‘Unifoska’ for all goods in class 1 and the trademark shall be registered; |
— |
award the costs in the Applicant's favor. |
Pleas in law
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
— |
Infringement of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and principle of legal certainty. |