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 62022TN0163

Case T-163/22: Action brought on 28 March 2022 — Transformers Manufacturing Company v EUIPO — H&F (TMC TRANSFORMERS)

OJ C 207, 23.5.2022, p. 47–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 207, 23.5.2022, p. 32–33 (GA)

23.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/47

Action brought on 28 March 2022 — Transformers Manufacturing Company v EUIPO — H&F (TMC TRANSFORMERS)

(Case T-163/22)

(2022/C 207/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Transformers Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H&F Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark TMC TRANSFORMERS — Application for registration No 17 262 668

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2022 in Case R 1211/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

first of all and principally, acknowledge H&F Srl’s lack of capacity and declare the proceedings at first and second instance before EUIPO inadmissible;

—

alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and based on insufficient reasoning;

—

in the alternative, overturn the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and refer the action back to EUIPO;

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs for the three stages of legal proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

Lack of capacity to bring proceedings on the part of H&F Srl, a matter on which EUIPO did not rule and for which it did not provide sufficient reasons;

—

Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009) in fact and in law;

—

Failure to state sufficient reasons for the contested decision.
Top