CELEX: 62021TN0461
Language: en
Date: 2021-08-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-461/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)

11.10.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 412/18
            
         
      Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)
      (Case T-461/21)
      (2021/C 412/19)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 — Application for registration No 17 867 689
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 909/2020-2
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867689) to proceed to registration;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to bear its own costs;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order C8 to bear its own costs;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration.