# C_2023286EN.01003802.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/38

---

Action brought on 23 June 2023 — Sergio Rossi v EUIPO — Stefano Ricci (sr 1)

(Case T-344/23)

(2023/C 286/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Rossi SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stefano Ricci SpA (Fiesole, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark sr 1 — EU trade mark No 15 861 248

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2023 in Case R 89/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the third-party intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the third-party intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the form of a failure on the part of the administration to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for its decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the form of a failure on the part of the administration to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for its decisions;

| — | Misuse of powers and lack of jurisdiction in assessing distinctive character in relation to the earlier marks, on the part of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers and lack of jurisdiction in assessing distinctive character in relation to the earlier marks, on the part of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| — | Failure to state reasons as regards a decisive point in the dispute (infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and failure to observe the general principles of EU law in the form of the principle of legality, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of good administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to state reasons as regards a decisive point in the dispute (infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and failure to observe the general principles of EU law in the form of the principle of legality, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of good administration;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625 and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular, as regards the assessment of the distinctive nature of national, not EU, trade marks, identification of the relevant public and the subsequent analysis of the similarity of the signs at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625 and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular, as regards the assessment of the distinctive nature of national, not EU, trade marks, identification of the relevant public and the subsequent analysis of the similarity of the signs at issue.

---