CELEX: 62020TN0201
Language: en
Date: 2020-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-201/20: Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Berebene v EUIPO — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (GHISU)

8.6.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/38
            
         
      Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Berebene v EUIPO — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (GHISU)
      (Case T-201/20)
      (2020/C 191/51)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Berebene Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Massimiani, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (Radda in Chianti, Italy)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark in colour GHISU — Application for registration No 17 232 571
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 in Case R 592/2019-1
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  and, as a result, order the registration of EU figurative mark GHISU No 17 232 571 also for the goods in Class 33 of the Nice Agreement;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings.
               
            
         Plea in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Incorrect comparison of the marks at issue and incorrect global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and unfair advantage.