CELEX: 62021TN0774
Language: en
Date: 2021-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-774/21: Action brought on 13 December 2021 — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO — Užstato sistemos administratorius (Representation of a bottle silhouette and an arrow)

21.2.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 84/42
            
         
      Action brought on 13 December 2021 — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO — Užstato sistemos administratorius (Representation of a bottle silhouette and an arrow)
      (Case T-774/21)
      (2022/C 84/59)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Götz, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ (Vilnius, Lithuania)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant of the trademark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a bottle silhouette with an arrow) — Application for registration No 14 481 519
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 117/2020-2
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.
               
            
         Plea in law
      
      The Board of Appeal wrongly based its ruling on the fact that the applicant failed to prove that its earlier trademark was genuinely used in accordance with its primary function as a sign indicating commercial origin in respect of the goods and services concerned.