201807201172012772018/C 276/853612018TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180608545521

(Case T-361/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Dontas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA (Athens, Greece)

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 figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — EU trade mark No 13 102 454

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 in Case R 90/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision, except insofar as it concerns ‘sago’ and ‘artificial rice [uncooked]’ covered by the contested EUTM in Class 30;

—declare the European Union Trade Mark invalid in its entirety;

—order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the General Court, the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

—Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the absolute ground of invalidity/refusal regarding deceptiveness;

—Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the absolute ground of invalidity regarding filing of an EUTM in bad faith;

—Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the absolute ground of invalidity/refusal regarding descriptiveness;

—Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the sufficient reasoning of EUIPO’s decisions.