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 62019TN0305

    Case T-305/19: Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

    OJ C 230, 8.7.2019, p. 59–60 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.7.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 230/59

    Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

    (Case T-305/19)

    (2019/C 230/73)

    Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

    Parties

    Applicant: Welmax + sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: M. Machyński, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valmex Medical Imaging GmbH (Augsburg, Germany)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘welmax’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 342 786

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2019 in Case R 2245/2018-5

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision in its entirety and give judgment on the substance of the case;

    —

    issue judgment by default in the cases provided for by law;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, including the costs incurred in respect of legal representation in accordance with the rules laid down by law.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Error of assessment with regard to the facts upon which the decision was based, which consisted in accepting that the decision which, in accordance with the legal provisions, could be the subject of an appeal, was effectively notified to the applicant on 20 July 2018 (allegedly by courier service), whereas the contents of that decision were notified to the applicant on 21 September 2018, after prior correspondence by email and a request to that effect had been submitted by the applicant to an agent of EUIPO;

    —

    Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

    —

    Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 23(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
    Top