This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0578
Case T-578/21: Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)
Case T-578/21: Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)
Case T-578/21: Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)
OJ C 462, 15.11.2021, p. 52–53
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.11.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 462/52 |
Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)
(Case T-578/21)
(2021/C 462/63)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0008
Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 1009/2018-3
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision; |
— |
alter the contested decision to:
|
— |
order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs. |
Pleas in law
— |
Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155); |
— |
Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172); |
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
— |
Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010. |