Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62022TN0546

Case T-546/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in blue and white with white horses)

OJ C 418, 31.10.2022, p. 47–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

31.10.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/47

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in blue and white with white horses)

(Case T-546/22)

(2022/C 418/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in blue and white with white horses — Application for registration No 18 161 231

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1733/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Top