# C_2020255EN.01002501.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/25

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)

(Case T-337/20)

(2020/C 255/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU word mark No 3 216 439

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 187/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Serious error of law, since conversion into an Austrian trade mark is not clearly excluded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious error of law, since conversion into an Austrian trade mark is not clearly excluded;

| — | Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an arbitrary assumption that the applicant had at no stage made a substantiated claim that use in Austria is to be assumed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an arbitrary assumption that the applicant had at no stage made a substantiated claim that use in Austria is to be assumed;

| — | Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Serious procedural error and error of law in so far as the Board of Appeal disregarded EUIPO’s finding and understanding that conversion into a German mark was lawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious procedural error and error of law in so far as the Board of Appeal disregarded EUIPO’s finding and understanding that conversion into a German mark was lawful;

| — | Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union through repeated disregard for the evidence of use submitted in Case C-118/18 P; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union through repeated disregard for the evidence of use submitted in Case C-118/18 P;

| — | Procedural error and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the applicant does have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Procedural error and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the applicant does have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings;

| — | Serious procedural error and error of law for having taken into account the arguments in the intervener’s submission of 23 September 2019 alleging that the applicant’s national trade mark application had been made in bad faith; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious procedural error and error of law for having taken into account the arguments in the intervener’s submission of 23 September 2019 alleging that the applicant’s national trade mark application had been made in bad faith;

| — | Serious error of law for excluding conversion under Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the basis of the judgment in Case C-149/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious error of law for excluding conversion under Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the basis of the judgment in Case C-149/11;

| — | Serious procedural error and error of law, since it was only after the Austrian mark was annulled that EUIPO requested that the applicant set out its position and EUIPO is still yet to express a view on the arguments put forward by the applicant in its conversion application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious procedural error and error of law, since it was only after the Austrian mark was annulled that EUIPO requested that the applicant set out its position and EUIPO is still yet to express a view on the arguments put forward by the applicant in its conversion application;

| — | Error of law as regards the decision on costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of law as regards the decision on costs.

---