# C_2021163EN.01003601.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/36

---

Action brought on 7 December 2020 — Kirimova v EUIPO

(Case T-727/20)

(2021/C 163/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigar Kirimova (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of 30 September 2020 of the Executive Director of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of 30 September 2020 of the Executive Director of EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO to exempt the applicant from the nationality requirement pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) (thereafter ‘EUTMR’); |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to exempt the applicant from the nationality requirement pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) (thereafter ‘EUTMR’);

| — | order EUIPO to enter the applicant to the list of Professional Representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to enter the applicant to the list of Professional Representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR;

| — | order EUIPO to pay all costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision No ER 93419-2020 of the Executive Director of the EUIPO of 30 September 2020, concerning the request of the applicant for entry on the list of professional representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR and for an exemption pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) EUTMR

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 (4) EUTMR due to the failure to interpret and implement it in the light of basic principles of the EU and the fundamental prohibition of discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 (4) EUTMR due to the failure to interpret and implement it in the light of basic principles of the EU and the fundamental prohibition of discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of sound administration by abuse of discretional power. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of sound administration by abuse of discretional power.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 94 and 97 EUTMR by infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 94 and 97 EUTMR by infringement of the right to be heard.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the evidence supporting the case. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the evidence supporting the case.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

---