I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
—
(2018/C 445/05)
Language of the case: English
Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—annul the judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16;
—confirm the decision of the Fourth board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in case number R 611/2015-4;
—order Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd to pay the costs including the costs necessarily incurred by the EUTM owner/successor/appellant.
The appeal is based on the infringement of Union Law by the General Court, namely Article 52(1)b of Council Regulation 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark, last amended by Council Regulation 2015/2424 (2).
The General Court erred in law by finding that the EUTM owner/predecessor was acting in bad faith when it filed an application to register the trade mark No 006035547. The General Court misinterpreted the concept of bad faith. There is nothing dishonest or unethical about using descriptive wording to describe a business. Hence the registration as a trademark was not in bad faith.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).
Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).
—