CELEX: 62020TN0463
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-463/20: Action brought on 20 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO –Wong (GT RACING)

21.9.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 313/29
            
         
      Action brought on 20 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO –Wong (GT RACING)
      (Case T-463/20)
      (2020/C 313/42)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wai Leong Wong (Glasgow, United Kingdom)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GT RACING — Application for registration No 17 138 033
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 1612/2019-4
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erring in the comparison of the signs;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erring in the comparison of the class 9, 16 and 28 goods of the earlier mark and the class 18 goods of the contested EUTM;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Failure to realise that its own finding of fact was sufficient to establish goodwill, misrepresentation an damage under the UK law of passing off;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Failure to consider the other criteria of passing off law under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.