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 62020TN0342

    Case T-342/20: Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice)

    OJ C 262, 10.8.2020, p. 31–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    10.8.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 262/31

    Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice)

    (Case T-342/20)

    (2020/C 262/42)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Indo European Foods Ltd (Harrow, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister and N. Welch, Solicitor)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hamid Ahmad Chakari (Vienna, Austria)

    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: Application for European Union figurative mark, in colour, Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice– Application for registration No 16 860 868

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1079/2019–4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    uphold the opposition in respect of all of the goods;

    —

    alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition Division.

    Plea in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
    Top