Case T-697/25: Action brought on 10 October 2025 – Bittorrent Marketing and Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO – Rainberry (BitTorrent)
Date: 2025-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, data transmission, information system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_202506394EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6394


8.12.2025






Action brought on 10 October 2025 – Bittorrent Marketing and Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO – Rainberry (BitTorrent)


(Case T-697/25)

(C/2025/6394)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rainberry, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

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 BitTorrent – European Union trade mark No 10 505 113
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2025 in Case R 1794/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal did not participate properly in EUIPO proceedings due to a lack of effective representation;










—


cancel EU figurative trade mark No 10 505 113 (‘BITTORRENT’) in its entirety for all registered goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42;










—


set aside the decision on costs of the Cancellation Division and impose the costs of the cancellation proceedings on the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in the ratio of 95:5;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs;










—


in the alternative: refer the case back to the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO with the following binding instructions:






a)


The legal capacity and power of representation of the intervener must be examined ex officio;










b)


The intervener shall be requested to submit as evidence within a reasonable period of time a set of documents specified in the application;










c)


If this evidence is not submitted, order the deletion of the contested trademark in its entirety.









Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 72 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 74 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 93(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 109(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 119(1) and (3), 120(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 120(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6394/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)