Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2018 г.

Текст

... o 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

In Case T‑882/16,

Sipral World, SL, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by R. Almaraz Palmero and A. Ruo, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

La Dolfina, SA, established in Buenos Aires (Argentina), represented by J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of S. Gervasoni, President, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk (Rapporteur) and C. Mac Eochaidh, Judges,

Registrar: I. Dragan, Administrator,

having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 December 2016,

having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 15 March 2017,

having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 13 April 2017,

further to the hearing on 22 February 2018,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1. On 9 March 2004, Mr Mauro Astengo filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 ...