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 62021TN0459

    Case T-459/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

    OJ C 382, 20.9.2021, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    20.9.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 382/29

    Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

    (Case T-459/21)

    (2021/C 382/41)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

    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 figurative mark Sunwhite — Application for registration No 18 115 808

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 in Case R 2465/2020-4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration;

    —

    order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

    Pleas in law

    —

    The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical;

    —

    The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements;

    —

    The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs;

    —

    The Board failed to take sufficient account of the visual difference between the marks and made merely general conclusions in this regard without concrete reasoning.
    Top