This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0652
Case T-652/22: Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — MHCS (Shade of the colour orange)
Case T-652/22: Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — MHCS (Shade of the colour orange)
Case T-652/22: Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — MHCS (Shade of the colour orange)
OJ C 472, 12.12.2022, pp. 45–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.12.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 472/45 |
Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — MHCS (Shade of the colour orange)
(Case T-652/22)
(2022/C 472/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and K. Wagner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MHCS (Épernay, France)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: European Union trade mark No 747 949
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2022 in Case R 118/2022-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision; |
|
— |
order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs; |
|
— |
order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant; |
|
— |
in the alternative, if the trade mark at issue is not declared invalid, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal. |
Pleas in law
|
— |
Infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
|
— |
Inadmissible interpretation of the trade mark at issue by reference to external circumstances; |
|
— |
Unlawful disregard of the description provided in defining the subject-matter of the trade mark at issue; |
|
— |
Erroneous assumption that the graphic representation as such meets the requirement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94; |
|
— |
Erroneous assumption that EUIPO had set legitimate expectations; |
|
— |
Erroneous determination of the relevant public and its degree of attention; |
|
— |
Incorrect restriction of the relevant market to champagne wines; |
|
— |
Erroneous interpretation of the concept of acquisition of distinctiveness through use and disregard of the relevance of market surveys; |
|
— |
Disregard of relevant observations submitted by the applicant; |
|
— |
Insufficient basis as far as distinctiveness for Greece, Portugal Luxembourg and Ireland was assumed. |