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 62017TN0665

    Case T-665/17: Action brought on 27 September 2017 – China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)

    OJ C 402, 27.11.2017, p. 49–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.11.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 402/49

    Action brought on 27 September 2017 – China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)

    (Case T-665/17)

    (2017/C 402/65)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: A. Carboni, J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupement des cartes bancaires (Paris, France)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: EU word mark figurative mark containing the word element ‘CCB’ — Application for registration No 13 359 609

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 2265/2016-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision and remit the EU trade mark application no. 13 359 609 to the EUIPO to allow it to proceed to registration; and

    —

    order EUIPO and any intervening parties in this Appeal to pay their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in Case R 2265/2016-1 and of Opposition B 2 524 422 before the Opposition Division.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation EUTMR by basing its decision on reasons and evidence on which the Applicant had no opportunity to present its comments;

    —

    Infringement of Article 76(1) EUTMR by taking account of facts, evidence and arguments not submitted by either party and evidence which was not filed in the case;

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as a result of the above infringements and also by incorrectly applying the guidance of the Courts as to how to assess the likelihood of confusion.
    Top