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 62018TN0522

    Case T-522/18: Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

    OJ C 392, 29.10.2018, 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)

    29.10.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 392/35

    Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

    (Case T-522/18)

    (2018/C 392/43)

    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

    Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

    Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AUREL BGC — Application for registration No 11 092 707

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2194/2014-5.

    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 application should be rejected for specific services in classes 35 and 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.
    Top