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 62017TN0681

    Case T-681/17: Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)

    IO C 402, 27.11.2017, p. 52–52 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.11.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 402/52

    Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)

    (Case T-681/17)

    (2017/C 402/68)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

    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: EU word mark ‘Khadi’ — EU trade mark No 10 479 954

    Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 in Case R 2083/2016-5

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

    —

    make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

    —

    Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Articles 7(1)(i) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top