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 62018TN0380

Case T-380/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

OJ C 294, 20.8.2018, p. 54–55 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201808030842050892018/C 294/683802018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180625545521

Case T-380/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

Top

C2942018EN5410120180625EN0068541552

Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

(Case T-380/18)

2018/C 294/68Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INTAS — Application for registration No 14 153 811

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2018 in Case R 815/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

in the alternative, alter the contested decision to the state that the opposition shall be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the opposition;

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs before the Board;

—

in the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs before the Board.

Plea in law

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Top