EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0160
Case T-160/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
Case T-160/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
Case T-160/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
OJ C 206, 31.5.2021, p. 31–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
31.5.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 206/31 |
Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
(Case T-160/21)
(2021/C 206/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ingrid Malpricht (Ludwigshafen, Germany)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark APIRETAL — European Union trade mark No 4 814 158
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2021 in Case R 1004/2020-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
uphold the present appeal; |
— |
revoke the defendant’s decision of 20 March 2020; |
— |
annul the contested decision of 20 January 2021; |
— |
revoke the cancellation for non-use the EUTM no. 4 814 158 ‘APERITAL’ in relation to contested goods in Class 5 while maintaining the registration of these goods (as well as to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’); |
— |
order EUIPO and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law
— |
Misinterpretation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when examining the concept of genuine use of the contested mark of any of the contested goods; |
— |
Misinterpretation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when assessing the concept of the proper reason for non-use. |