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 62018TN0658

    Case T-658/18: Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)

    IO C 25, 21.1.2019, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    21.1.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 25/46

    Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)

    (Case T-658/18)

    (2019/C 25/59)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson and R. Wessman, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in colours blue and white (Representation of a pattern of squares) — Application for registration No 1 340 047

    Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 442/2018-2

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 94 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the Board of Appeal has not made a proper examination, and/or has failed to state the reasons for its decision in relation to the different goods and services applied for;

    —

    Infringement of Article 94, Article 95 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the subject trade mark is not a repeated pattern or a three-dimensional mark;

    —

    Erroneous assessment of the relevant underlying public interest constituting infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

    —

    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council since the Board of Appeal has made an incorrect assessment as regards inherent distinctiveness.
    Top