This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0841
Case T-841/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
Case T-841/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
Case T-841/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
OJ C 45, 10.2.2020, p. 91–92
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.2.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 45/91 |
Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
(Case T-841/19)
(2020/C 45/77)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises
Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0008
Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1009/2018-3
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue; |
|
— |
to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1010/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action; |
|
— |
order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees. |
Pleas in law
|
— |
The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties. |