CELEX: 62021TN0270
Language: en
Date: 2021-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-270/21: Action brought on 19 May 2021 — Estetica Group Iwona Michalak v EUIPO (PURE BEAUTY)

12.7.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 278/56
            
         
      Action brought on 19 May 2021 — Estetica Group Iwona Michalak v EUIPO (PURE BEAUTY)
      (Case T-270/21)
      (2021/C 278/76)
      Language of the case: Polish
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Estetica Group Iwona Michalak (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Gutowski, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PURE BEAUTY — Application No 18 160 933
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2021 in Case R 1456/2020-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  alter the contested decision by declaring that, in relation to the mark applied for, there is no absolute ground for refusal as referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement by the Board of Appeal of the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations through a failure to take into consideration the previous decision-making practice of the Office permitting the registration of word or figurative marks with a similar degree of fancifulness to the mark applied for, although there were no special circumstances that would justify a departure from that practice in the present case.