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 62021TN0505

    Case T-505/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipment)

    IO C 401, 4.10.2021, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.10.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 401/19

    Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipment)

    (Case T-505/21)

    (2021/C 401/20)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

    Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

    Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0010

    Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2021 in Case R 1003/2018-3

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    alter the contested decision to:

    —

    allow the applicant’s appeal,

    —

    dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 296 to declare the contested design invalid,

    —

    order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

    —

    order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

    —

    Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

    —

    Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010.
    Top