Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62021TN0287

Case T-287/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)

IO C 278, 12.7.2021, p. 65–65 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.7.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/65

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)

(Case T-287/21)

(2021/C 278/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

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 word mark SALATINA — European Union trade mark No 15 940 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 889/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

uphold the present application;

—

reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 905 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark SALATINA and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

—

remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

—

order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on grounds of bad faith;

—

Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Top