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 62020TN0266

Case T-266/20: Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020, p. 40–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.6.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/40

Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-266/20)

(2020/C 209/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

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 European Union figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE — Application for registration No 15 508 161

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 235/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

vary the contested decision and find that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(1)(b) of EUTMR are not fulfilled in the present case;

—

or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal) and order the intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 92 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Top