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 62018TN0609

Case T-609/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)

IO C 445, 10.12.2018, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
05/10/2018
Date lodged:
05/10/2018
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Type of procedure:
Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

10.12.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/22

Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)

(Case T-609/18)

(2018/C 445/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media GmbH (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schulze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger und C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iTernity GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘d:ternity’ — EU trade mark No 11 152 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 in Case R 2324/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

in the alternative, declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings;

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Top