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