Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019TN0606

Case T-606/19: Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 33–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.11.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/33


Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)

(Case T-606/19)

(2019/C 372/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: José Fernando Bartolomé Alvarado (Madrid, Spain) and Grupo Preciados Place, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. García Remacha, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpargatas SA (São Paulo, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES — European Union trade mark No 14 750 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 1825/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Find that the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 20 June 2019, which was notified to the applicants on 5 July 2019, has been submitted in due form and within the corresponding deadline; and, by way of the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, reject any and all of the claims of the company ALPARTAGAS S.A., and order that the registration of EU trade mark No 14 750 624 be maintained, with all the legal consequences associated therewith.

Pleas in law

Challenge to the contested decision with regard to the res judicata relied on by the applicant;

Challenge to the Office’s assessment of the similarity between the opposing marks;

The decision creates a monopoly of the name ‘alpargata’, thereby infringing the trade mark regime and the position adopted by the Office itself;

No likelihood of association or confusion.


Top