Communication: new case No. 0019 of 2022

IDENTIFIER
62022TN0019
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
General Court
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
2
REFERENCED
0
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: new case

Judgment



28.2.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/41


Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry (Shape of a scooter)

(Case T-19/22)

(2022/C 95/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a scooter) –European Union trade mark No 11 686 482

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2021 in Case R 359/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

in the alternative:

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Boards of Appeal for them to set out clearly in which countries the EU mark No 11 686 482 of the applicant is valid and/or has acquired distinctive character and, conversely, in which countries it has not acquired such distinctive character, on the basis of the evidence provided by the proprietor;

in any event:

order the defendant to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union;

order EUIPO and the potential intervener to pay the entirety of the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

Infringement and/or incorrect interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and incorrect assessment of the evidence provided by the proprietor of the EU mark.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.