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

Текст

... he first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

In Case T‑682/17,

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, established in Mumbai Maharashtra (India), represented by J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented initially by M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and subsequently by M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents,

defendant,

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

BNP Best Natural Products GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2085/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of S. Frimodt Nielsen, President, V. Kreuschitz and N. Półtorak (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: I. Dragan, Administrator,

having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 2 October 2017,

having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 15 December ...