CELEX: 62021TN0780
Language: en
Date: 2021-12-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-780/21: Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Lila Rossa Engros v EUIPO (LiLAC)

28.2.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 95/40
            
         
      Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Lila Rossa Engros v EUIPO (LiLAC)
      (Case T-780/21)
      (2022/C 95/56)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Lila Rossa Engros SRL (Voluntari, Romania) (represented by: O. Anghel, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for the black EU figurative mark LiLAC — Application for registration No 18 243 487
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2021 in Case R 441/2021-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  uphold the present action;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  grant the application for registration No 18 243 487 for the mark LiLAC in respect of all the goods and services applied for;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Incorrect application of the criteria for analysing the absolute grounds for refusal laid down by the case-law.