# C_2022389EN.01001501.xml

| 10.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/15

---

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — CrossFit v EUIPO — Pitk Pelotas (CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-506/22)

(2022/C 389/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CrossFit LLC (Boulder, Colorado, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pitk Pelotas, SL (Noain, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT — Application for registration No 18 064 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2022 in Case R 325/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

partly annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision;

| — | order Pitk Pelotas, SL to pay the costs incurred by CrossFit, LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Pitk Pelotas, SL to pay the costs incurred by CrossFit, LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the First Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier CROSSFIT trade marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the First Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier CROSSFIT trade marks;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the First Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier CROSS trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the First Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier CROSS trade mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the applicant had failed to prove the reputation of its earlier CROSSFIT trademark in the EU, in connection to the services in Class 41. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the applicant had failed to prove the reputation of its earlier CROSSFIT trademark in the EU, in connection to the services in Class 41.

---