Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62020TN0344

Case T-344/20: Action brought on 3 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020, p. 45–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.7.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/45

Action brought on 3 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)

(Case T-344/20)

(2020/C 247/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unión Detallistas Españoles S. Coop. Unide (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘unit’ — Application for registration No 16 542 078

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2005/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

The Board of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider that the proof of use regarding sales, during the relevant period, in respect of the Spanish trade marks No 1795078 and No 2289074 — which required proof of use — is insufficient due to the lack or shortage of such proof and, consequently, by stating that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of consumers.

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Top