# C_2021088EN.01004001.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/40

---

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)

(Case T-46/21)

(2021/C 88/53)

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: Liu Yajun (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark PREMILITY — Application for registration No 17 899 016

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2020 in Case R 881/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145.

| — | Inconsistency of the decision with and, therefore, infringement of, the case-law established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 in Case C-115/19 P, China Construction Bank v EUIPO (C-115/19 P, EU:C:2020:469) and in the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020, Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World and Others) (T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T - 98/19, EU:T:2020:231). |
| --- | --- |

—

Inconsistency of the decision with and, therefore, infringement of, the case-law established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 in Case C-115/19 P, China Construction Bank v EUIPO (C-115/19 P, EU:C:2020:469) and in the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020, Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World and Others) (T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T - 98/19, EU:T:2020:231).

---