Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62020TN0738

Case T-738/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)

OJ C 53, 15.2.2021, p. 51–52 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
17/12/2020
Date lodged:
17/12/2020
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Defendant:
European Union Intellectual Property Office

15.2.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/51

Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)

(Case T-738/20)

(2021/C 53/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutschtec GmbH (Petershagen/Eggersdorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Arnade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Group A NV (Hasselt, Belgium)

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 word mark HOLUX — Application for registration No 17 371 378

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2020 in Case R 223/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in case B 3 051 677 to the extent it upholds the opposition;

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

—

The contested decision lacks the necessary conclusion drawn from the fact that the terms ‘common metal and alloys thereof’ as well as ‘metal goods’ in Class 6 are too vague. Furthermore, it lacks a diligent analysis whether the addressees in the market would consider goods deriving from the same origin.
Top