# C_2021028EN.01006302.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/63

---

Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)

(Case T-707/20)

(2021/C 28/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sky5 — Application for registration No 17 837 221

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 229/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the objections to registration of the contested mark in their entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the objections to registration of the contested mark in their entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board f of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board f of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all;

| — | The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services;

| — | The Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it;

| — | The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark;

| — | The opposition will be devoid of purpose, insofar as it is based on the United Kingdom trade mark, at the end of the transition period, i.e. from 1 January 2021, when references to Member States in the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council will no longer refer to the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

—

The opposition will be devoid of purpose, insofar as it is based on the United Kingdom trade mark, at the end of the transition period, i.e. from 1 January 2021, when references to Member States in the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council will no longer refer to the United Kingdom.

---