This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0044
Case T-44/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)
Case T-44/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)
Case T-44/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)
OJ C 93, 11.3.2019, p. 77–77
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.3.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 93/77 |
Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)
(Case T-44/19)
(2019/C 93/99)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Globalia Corporación Empresarial, SA (Llucmajor, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touring Club Italiano (Milan, Italy)
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 figurative mark TC Touring Club in colours red and light grey — Application for registration No 15 299 001
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 in Case R 448/2018-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision due to infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, constituting a substantial procedural error; and/or |
|
— |
set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 47(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and enter a finding to the effect that proof of ‘genuine’ use of the earlier trade mark is insufficient or inconclusive; and/or |
|
— |
set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exists likelihood of confusion between the confronted trade marks; |
|
— |
order the defendant and the intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings, to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law
|
— |
Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 47(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |