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 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)

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