Action brought on 24 September 2020 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)

(Case T-589/20)

(2020/C 378/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl (Surano, Italy) (represented by: R. Fragalà, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inticom SpA (Gallarate, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY — Application for registration No 11 266 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 in Case R 1874/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— as an ancillary and preliminary matter, pursuant to Article 256(3) TFEU in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, rule on the lawfulness of Article 18(1) of Decision 2018-9 of 12 November 2018 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, which does not lay down an obligation to change the members of a Board of Appeal in appeals against an opposition decision referred for misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council or of any rule of law relating to its application, on the ground that it is contrary to the imperative rules of the principle of ‘sound administration’ and of the right to ‘an effective remedy/fair trial’ laid down in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— in the main and on the substance, pursuant to Article 72 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, alter and/or annul, with reference to another Board of Appeal or to the Grand Board pursuant to Article 165(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the contested decision in so far as it was issued in breach of an essential procedural requirement, in breach of the TFEU, and in breach and/or misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law relied on

— unlawfulness of Article 18(1) of Decision 2018-9 of 12 November 2018 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal on the organisation of the Boards, on account of its being contrary to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

— procedural and formal irregularities of the contested decision: infringement of Article 24(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625 and of Article 3(4) and (5) of Decision 2020-1 of 27 February 2020 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; infringement of Article 55(2), (3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; infringement of Article 54(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Decision 2020-1 of 27 February 2020 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, and of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; infringement and/or misapplication of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;