CELEX: 62021TN0741
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-741/21: Action brought on 22 November 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)

24.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 37/48
            
         
      Action brought on 22 November 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)
      (Case T-741/21)
      (2022/C 37/63)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Bölling, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ZTE Deutschland (Düsseldorf, Germany)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark V10 — European Union trade mark No 14 328 892
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2021 in Case R 2101/2020-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision insofar as it rejects the applicant’s appeal against the cancellation decision in relation only to the goods smart phones, mobile phones and wearable smart phones;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 due to insufficient differentiation between invalidated goods;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 due to inconsistent argumentation on the public’s perception;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no intrinsic and inherent characteristic;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no easily recognizable characteristic;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no specific, precise and objective characteristic.