This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0768
Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
OJ C 62, 22.2.2021, p. 41–42
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 62/41 |
Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
(Case T-768/20)
(2021/C 62/52)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister and M. Maier, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark The Standard — European Union trade mark No 8 405 243
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 in Case R 828/2020-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision; |
|
— |
order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application; alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, |
|
— |
order EUIPO and that other party to be jointly and severally liable for those costs. |
Pleas in law
The contested decision is vitiated for four principal reasons, namely the Board:
|
— |
erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and offers for sale of the hotel and ancillary services, namely those in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, directed to EU consumers amounted to genuine use of the European Union trade mark in circumstances where those services were rendered in the United States; |
|
— |
erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and promotion of the relevant services was sufficient to prove genuine use for those services; |
|
— |
erred in law by failing to hold that advertising of the opening of the London hotel was relevant; and, |
|
— |
erred in law by failing to provide any, or any sufficient, reasoning for reaching the conclusion drawn at. |