- 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-652/22: Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — MHCS (Shade of the colour orange)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0652
62022TN0652
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
12.12.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 472/45
(Case T-652/22)
(2022/C 472/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and K. Wagner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MHCS (Épernay, France)
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 trade mark No 747 949
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2022 in Case R 118/2022-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs;
—order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;
—in the alternative, if the trade mark at issue is not declared invalid, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law
—Infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—Inadmissible interpretation of the trade mark at issue by reference to external circumstances;
—Unlawful disregard of the description provided in defining the subject-matter of the trade mark at issue;
—Erroneous assumption that the graphic representation as such meets the requirement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
—Erroneous assumption that EUIPO had set legitimate expectations;
—Erroneous determination of the relevant public and its degree of attention;
—Incorrect restriction of the relevant market to champagne wines;
—Erroneous interpretation of the concept of acquisition of distinctiveness through use and disregard of the relevance of market surveys;
—Disregard of relevant observations submitted by the applicant;
—Insufficient basis as far as distinctiveness for Greece, Portugal Luxembourg and Ireland was assumed.