CELEX: 62021TN0656
Language: en
Date: 2021-10-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-656/21: Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)

13.12.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 502/37
            
         
      Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)
      (Case T-656/21)
      (2021/C 502/55)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and J. Bittner, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)
      
         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 H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Application for registration No 17 599 374
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 1954/2019-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO and the other party (if it takes part in these proceedings) to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal wrongly held that the relevant public included the general public;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The Board of Appeal failed to consider the two marks as respective wholes, taking account of their dominant and distinctive elements.