- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-63/22: Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0063
62022TN0063
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
4.4.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 148/33
(Case T-63/22)
(2022/C 148/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States)
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 BROOKS ENGLAND — Application for registration No 3 298 321
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 2432/2020-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—uphold the action brought by the plaintiff;
—entirely annul the contested decision and therefore declare that the contested sign should be registered for all the contested goods;
—as a subordinary request, to partially annul the contested decision declaring that the contested sign should be registered for at least the contested goods in class 18;
—order EUIPO to reimburse all legal expenses borne by the plaintiff in connection with the previous and present proceedings.
Pleas in law
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the likelihood of confusion between the contested sign and the earlier trademark;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the evidence of use of the earlier trademark;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the comparison of the goods;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the comparison of the signs and risk of association.