Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2020:328
Date: 2020-07-08
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

summary of those pleas in law. It must, accordingly, specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based, which means that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure. 97 It must be noted that, apart from the arguments examined in paragraphs 25 to 95 above, the applicant does not put forward any other arguments in support of the pleas in law set out in paragraph 22 above. In particular, as EUIPO points out, no specific arguments are put forward in support of the second plea alleging infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty or in support of the fifth plea, in that it alleges misuse of powers. Similarly, there is no argument in support of the fourth plea that the Board of Appeal infringed Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. Those pleas must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. 98 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the present action must be dismissed in its entirety, partly as unfounded and partly as inadmissible. Costs 99 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by EUIPO. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders FF Group Romania SRL to pay the costs. Kornezov Buttigieg Kowalik-Bańczyk Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 July 2020. E. Coulon S. Papasavvas Registrar President * Language of the case: English.