17.5.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/9

(Case C-62/21)

(2021/C 189/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants and respondents in the appeal on a point of law: E. Leinfelder GmbH, TL, SW, WL

Questions referred

1.Does the circumstance that an application for revocation of an EU trade mark on the grounds of non-use may be submitted by any natural or legal person and any body having the capacity to sue and be sued, as provided for in Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, (2) lead to the ineffectiveness of a contractual agreement by which a third party undertakes vis-à-vis the proprietor of an EU trade mark not to file an application for the revocation of that EU trade mark on the grounds of non-use with the European Union Intellectual Property Office?

2.Does the circumstance that an application for revocation of an EU trade mark on the grounds of non-use may be submitted by any natural or legal person and any body having the capacity to sue and be sued, as provided for in Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, have the effect that a final judgment of a court of a Member State requiring the defendant to withdraw an application for the revocation of an EU trade mark on the grounds of non-use filed by him or her directly or via a person instructed by him or her is to be disregarded in revocation proceedings before the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the Courts of the European Union?

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).