March 01
2021
Trajan Shipley
share
25th January 2021
Data, Tech & IP

New trademark cases before the General Court

Several new cases concerning trademarks lodged before the General Court have been officially published:

 

Pluscard Service v EUIPO (PLUSCARD)

Germany-based Pluscard Service seeks the annulment (T-669/20) of a decision of the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 638/2020-4, where the board partially rejected an international registration application designating the EU on the ground that it was merely descriptive.

In support of the action, Pluscard alleges the infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Trademark Regulation.

Read the officially published application here.

 

Canisius v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (CCLABELLE VIENNA)

By this action (T-694/20), the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal decision in Case R 2233/2019-4, by which the Board allowed the opposition on the basis that there existed likelihood of confusion.

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the appellate body misapplied Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of the Trademark Regulation.

Read the officially published application here.

 

Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)

Spain-based Bimbo Donuts Iberia seeks the annulment (T-697/20) of the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal decision in Case R 514/2020-5, where it found that the use of the products for which the earlier marks is registered is not established, and thus rejected the opposition sought for a different trademark.

In support of the action, Bimbo claims the infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of the Trademark Regulation.

Read the officially published application here.

 

Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

By this action (T-699/20), Milan-based Fashion Energy Srl seeks the annulment of the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal decision in Case R 426/2020-4, by which the Board rejected the application for a sign, where the bird of prey and ‘1st AMERICAN’ would be seen as separate elements, and thus there was likelihood of confusion based on the General Court’s case law.

In support of this action, Fashion Energy alleges the infringement of Article 72(6) and 8(1)(b) of the Trademark Regulation, as well as the infringement of the duty to state reasons.

Read the officially published application here.

 

Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE)

By this action (T-700/20), the applicant challenges before the General Court the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal decision in Case R 2186/2019-4, cancelling a trademark on the ground of bad faith.

In support of the action, the applicant claims the infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(i) of the Trademark Regulation.

Read the officially published application here.

 

Beelow v EUIPO (made of wood)

The applicant seeks the annulment (T-702/20) of the EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal decision in Case R 108/2020-2, by which the appellate body partially rejected a revocation on the ground of the General Court’s judgment in T-78/19.

The applicant claims the infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Trademark Regulation.

Read the officially published application here.

 

Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)

US-based Skyworks Solutions seeks the annulment (T-707/20) of the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal decision in Case R 229/2020-4, where it allowed opposition on the ground of likelihood of conclusion based on the identity of the goods and services and phonetic and conceptual similarity.

In support of the action, Skyworks puts forward the following claims:

  • the Board of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all;
  • the Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services;
  • the Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it;
  • the Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark;
  • the opposition will be devoid of purpose, insofar as it is based on the United Kingdom trade mark, at the end of the transition period, from 1 January 2021, when references to Member States in the Trademark Regulation will no longer refer to the United Kingdom.

Read the officially published application here.

 

TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)

Hong-Kong based TrekStor Ltd seeks the annulment (T-708/20) of a decision by the EUIPO’s First Board of Appeal in Case R 561/2020-1, by which the Board partially rejected an application on the ground that it was descriptive and non-distinctive.

In support of the action, TrekStor claims that the Board infringed Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Trademark Regulation.

Read the officially published application here.

×

Your privacy is important for us

We use cookies to improve the user experience. Please review privacy preferences.

Accept all Settings

Check our privacy policy and cookies policy.

Cookies