CELEX: 62020TN0387
Language: en
Date: 2020-06-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-387/20: Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

10.8.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/35
            
         
      Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
      (Case T-387/20)
      (2020/C 262/48)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Ltd (Edinburgh, 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 figurative mark DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 April 2020 in Case R 849/2018-2
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  reverse the contested decision in its entirety;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to bear the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal has erred in the assessment of the consequence of the (administrative) limitation of the goods in the applicant’s trademark application, and the impact of the figurative element in the applicant’s mark;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal completely ignored the fact that the General Court had already assessed the distinctiveness of the word ‘HUNTER’ for goods in class 25.