Order;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2026:201
Date: 2026-03-19
Language of the case: Polish
Procedure: Action for annulment
Origin: Poland

Action brought on 15 April 2025 – Mordalski v EUIPO – Anita Food (ANITA) (Case T-251/25) Language in which the application was lodged: Polish Parties Applicant: Grzegorz Mordalski (Działoszyn, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anita Food, SA (Lima, Peru) 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: EU figurative mark ‘ANITA’ – EU trade mark No 8 109 993 Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2025 in Case R 1567/2024-4 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2025 in Case R 1567/2024-4, dismissing the appeal; and also annul the decision of EUIPO’s Cancellation Division of 7 June 2024 in Case 47 087 C (preceding the abovementioned decision), which rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word and figurative mark ANITA No 8 109 993; and refer back to the EUIPO for reconsideration the application dated 1 November 2020 for a declaration of invalidity of the registration of the EU word and figurative mark No 8 109 993, registration of which was sought on 18 February 2009 and which was protected until 18 February 2019, registered in the name and on behalf of Anita Food S.A; order EUIPO to pay the costs. Pleas in law Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; Infringement of the second sentence of recital 3 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, 1 , which ensures that ‘Trade mark protection in the Member States coexists with protection at Union level’ – whereas, as a result of the interpretation of the law made in the contested decision, the protection of a trade mark available at EU level excludes the protection of a trade mark in a Member State; Infringement of Article 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. ____________ 1 Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1).