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
EN
(2021/C 35/73)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: MiMedx Group, Inc. (Marietta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIZG Deutsches Institut für Zell- und Gewebeersatz gGmbH (Berlin, Germany)
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 Epiflex — European Union trade mark No 1 281 385
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 133/2020-2
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision
—order EUIPO and the other Party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.
—Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;
—Infringement of the principle of equality as laid down in Article 20 in conjunction with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);
—Infringement of right to good administration as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter;
—Infringement of right to a fair trial as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter;
—Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 19(1), third sentence, and 10(7) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430.