CELEX: 62020TN0768
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)

22.2.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 62/41
            
         
      Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
      (Case T-768/20)
      (2021/C 62/52)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister and M. Maier, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark The Standard — European Union trade mark No 8 405 243
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 in Case R 828/2020-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application;
                  alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO and that other party to be jointly and severally liable for those costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      The contested decision is vitiated for four principal reasons, namely the Board:
      
                  —
               
               
                  erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and offers for sale of the hotel and ancillary services, namely those in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, directed to EU consumers amounted to genuine use of the European Union trade mark in circumstances where those services were rendered in the United States;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and promotion of the relevant services was sufficient to prove genuine use for those services;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  erred in law by failing to hold that advertising of the opening of the London hotel was relevant; and,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  erred in law by failing to provide any, or any sufficient, reasoning for reaching the conclusion drawn at.