EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0267

Case T-267/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 37–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806150841955142018/C 231/472672018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430373711

Case T-267/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

Top

C2312018EN3710120180430EN0047371371

Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

(Case T-267/18)

2018/C 231/47Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Iceland Foods Ltd (Deeside, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Íslandsstofa (Reykjavik, Iceland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark INSPIRED BY ICELAND — Application for registration No 14 350 094

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 340/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation No 2017/1001 by failing to decide the appeal;

Infringement of an essential procedural requirement under Article 72 of Regulation No 2017/1001 in that the Board acted contrary to the principles of procedural economy and fairness in deciding to remit the case for re-examination of the contested mark on absolute grounds, while also pre-judging the applicability of absolute grounds without hearing from the applicant for annulment, thereby acting contrary to the principle of audi alteram partem.

Top