Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2021:327
Date: 2021-06-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Action brought on 26 June 2020 – Riviera-Airport v EUIPO – Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT) (Case T-398/20) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORT in colour – European Union trade mark No 16 392 731 Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2020 in Case R 2174/2019-4 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the contested decision; alter the contested decision to : allow the applicant’s appeal, grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 824 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid, order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs. Pleas in law Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application; Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application; Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application; Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue; Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis. ____________