CELEX: 62021TN0076
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-76/21: Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann v EUIPO — Cirillo (POMODORO)

29.3.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 110/34
            
         
      Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann v EUIPO — Cirillo (POMODORO)
      (Case T-76/21)
      (2021/C 110/38)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann GbR (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francesco Cirillo (Berlin, Germany)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
      
         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark POMODORO — European Union trade mark No 10 926 152
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2020 in Case R 715/2020-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  reject the European Union trade mark (EUTM) proprietor’s appeal of 17 April 2020 in its entirety;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:
      
                  —
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant was not allowed to take into account the EUTM proprietor’s statement of grounds and evidence for his appeal because the EUTM proprietor did not file his statement of grounds within the non-extendable time-limit of four months;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the new evidence is inadmissible according to Article 27(4) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of grounds and the new evidence did not establish proof of genuine use.