Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0264

    Case T-264/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)

    IO C 249, 16.7.2018, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    201806290761986722018/C 249/352642017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180606282922

    Case T-264/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)

    Top

    C2492018EN2820120180606EN0035282292

    Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)

    (Case T-264/17) ( 1 )

    ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)’

    2018/C 249/35Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swep International and Uponor Innovation.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2);

    2.

    Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the General Court;

    3.

    Orders Swep International AB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.


    ( 1 ) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

    Top