4.7.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 257/41
Pleas in law — Infringement of Articles 60 and 8 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. — Infringement of Article 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal. — Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 16 May 2022 — Consulta v EUIPO — Karlinger (ACASA) (Case T-267/22) (2022/C 257/53) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: Consulta GmbH (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and S. Brandstätter, lawyers) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mario Karlinger (Sölden, Austria) Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ACASA — EU trade mark No 7 587 165 Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2022 in Case R 487/2021-1 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision; — order EUIPO to pay the costs.
Pleas in law — Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; — Infringement of Article 72(2) read in conjunction with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; — Infringement of the principles developed in the case-law of the General Court of the European Union on the interpretation of those provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyansky v Council (Case T-270/22) (2022/C 257/54) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyansky (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger, lawyers)