12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/67

(Case T-293/21)

(2021/C 278/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ulrike Muschaweck (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joachim Conze (Munich, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘UM’ — EU trade mark No 9 305 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 in Case R 2260/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision and annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in so far as it was decided that EU trade mark No 9 305 731 is to remain registered for the other services, namely for:

Class 44: Medical services in the field of hernia surgery;

—uphold the application for a declaration of revocation of EU trade mark No 9 305 731 in its entirety;

—thus declare EU trade mark No 9 305 731 to be revoked with effect from 20 June 2017 for all goods and services, namely for:

Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments; artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; orthopaedic articles; suture materials;

Class 41: Education and entertainment; providing of training; sporting and cultural activities; all of the aforesaid services being in the field of medical services;

Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software; all of the aforesaid services being in the field of medical services.

Class 44: Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; agriculture, horticulture and forestry services;

—order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—The contested decision is vitiated by procedural errors of law: no effective representation of the other party; the submission made by the proprietor of the trade mark is out of time;

—The contested decision is vitiated by substantive errors of law: no authorisation of the original proprietor of the trade mark to use the mark; no genuine use of EU trade mark UM; use of EU trade mark UM bearing the additional text ‘Dr. Muschaweck’.