- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-488/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0488
62017TN0488
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
18.9.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 309/40
(Case T-488/17)
(2017/C 309/53)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: Ghost — Corporate Management SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. de Barros Araújo, advogada)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘Dry zone’ — Application for registration No 15 498 322
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2017 in Case R 0683/2017-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—uphold the present appeal and consequently annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2017 in its entirety and consequently substitute the contested decision with one which holds that Case No R 683/2017-2, EUTM No 015498322 Dry Zone was filed in good time, so that the action may be pursued accordingly.
—order EUIPO to pay the costs.
Pleas in law
—First plea: infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1) and Article 72(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995, L 303, p. 1), as amended by 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 (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21);
—second plea: failure to observe the procedural safeguards to which the appellant is entitled, by not establishing the existence of facts which are not under the control of the applicant or which amount to an incidence of force majeure, in breach of the principle of proportionality;
—third plea: infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.