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
(Case T-346/23)
(2023/C 278/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Finastra International Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fenestrae BV (‘s-Gravenhage, Netherlands)
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the European Union word mark FINASTRA — International registration designating the European Union No 1 405 804
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2023 in Case R 1296/2022-1
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—order EUIPO (and the intervener, should it take part in these proceedings) to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant for annulment before this Court and before the Board of Appeal.
—Wrong interpretation of the specified goods & services;
—Misidentification of the relevant public;
—Failing to apply the rule of conceptual counteraction as regards a specialised public.