CELEX: 62020TN0707
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-707/20: Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)

25.1.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 28/63
            
         
      Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)
      (Case T-707/20)
      (2021/C 28/94)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sky5 — Application for registration No 17 837 221
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 229/2020-4
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  reject the objections to registration of the contested mark in their entirety;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  The Board f of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The opposition will be devoid of purpose, insofar as it is based on the United Kingdom trade mark, at the end of the transition period, i.e. from 1 January 2021, when references to Member States in the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council will no longer refer to the United Kingdom.