CELEX: 62021TN0416
Language: en
Date: 2021-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-416/21: Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

6.9.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 357/27
            
         
      Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)
      (Case T-416/21)
      (2021/C 357/42)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 859
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 May 2021 in Case R 997/2020-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Misinterpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.