EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/20

(Case T-502/20)

(2020/C 329/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: M. Guix Vilanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tone Watch, SL (Madrid, Spain)

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: Word mark MUNICH10A.T.M. — European Union trade mark No 10 727 899

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 2472/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision and declare Community trade mark MUNICH10A.T.M. No. 10 727 899, of which Importaciones Issar, S.L. is the owner, invalid in relation to goods in Classes 9 (Sunglasses), 14 (Horological and chronometric instruments, boxes for watches (presentation)) and 35 (Wholesaling, retailing and sale via global computer networks of sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys, jewellery, horological and chronometric instruments) of the International Classification, uphold that decision in so far as it declares the mark invalid with respect to services in Class 35 (Advertising, Business management, Business administration, Office functions), uphold the cross-appeal and cancel the registration of the mark in relation to goods in Classes 14, namely, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes, and 35, rental of vending machines, and order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—The contested decision did not find that the earlier marks with the common element ‘MUNICH’ have a reputation and wrongly concluded that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council is not applicable in the present case;

—There is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in relation to the marks at issue;

—The reasoning given in the contested decision as regards the rejection of the cross-appeal, namely that it was not lodged by a separate document, is an excessive formal restriction, since that cross-appeal is stated clearly and expressly, and prevents the applicant from asserting its rights of defence.