This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0435
Case T-435/17: Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
Case T-435/17: Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
Case T-435/17: Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
IO C 283, 28.8.2017, p. 54–54
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.8.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/54 |
Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
(Case T-435/17)
(2017/C 283/83)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Grendene (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J. L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hipanema (Paris, France)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘HIPANEMA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 154 586
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/01/2017 in Case R 629/2016-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision and replace it with a decision recognising the affinity between the goods covered by the mark applied for and those protected by the opponent’s earlier marks, to the extent necessary in order to acknowledge a similarity between those goods within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark; |
|
— |
once that similarity between the goods is acknowledged, compare the signs at issue from a verbal perspective, which was not done either during the opposition proceedings or during the administrative action, conclude that the signs at issue are identical phonetically and aurally and similar graphically, hold that peaceful coexistence between the marks at issue is impossible and, lastly, reject the application for protection in the European Union of international trademark No 1 154 586 ‘HIPANEMA’, Class 14. Or, if the General Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, remit the question to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, subject to the requirement that it acknowledge the similarity between the marks at issue. |
Plea in law
|
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |