Action brought on 2 February 2022 – Granini France v EUIPO – Pichler (Joro)

(Case T-68/22)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josef Pichler (St. Leonhard in Passeier, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Joro – Application for registration No 18 136 261

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 2336/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

amend the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 November 2020 is annulled in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of:

Ginseng liquor; Japanese liquor flavoured with Japanese plum extracts; Red ginseng liquor; Hulless barley liquor; Tonic liquor flavoured with japanese plum extracts (umeshu); Alcoholic cocktail mixes; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Alcoholic tea-based beverages; Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer; Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; Aperitifs; Japanese sweet grape wine containing extracts of ginseng and cinchona bark; Black raspberry wine [Bokbunjaju]; Alcoholic beverages of fruit; Wine coolers [drinks]; Fruit extracts, alcoholic

and that the EU trade mark application No 18 136 261 is also rejected in respect of those goods;

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

____________