CELEX: 62020TN0738
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-738/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)

15.2.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 53/51
            
         
      Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)
      (Case T-738/20)
      (2021/C 53/67)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Deutschtec GmbH (Petershagen/Eggersdorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Arnade, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Group A NV (Hasselt, Belgium)
      
         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 word mark HOLUX — Application for registration No 17 371 378
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2020 in Case R 223/2020-4
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in case B 3 051 677 to the extent it upholds the opposition;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to bear the costs.
               
            
         Plea in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  The contested decision lacks the necessary conclusion drawn from the fact that the terms ‘common metal and alloys thereof’ as well as ‘metal goods’ in Class 6 are too vague. Furthermore, it lacks a diligent analysis whether the addressees in the market would consider goods deriving from the same origin.