Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19 / Judgment

Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
General Court (Eighth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
28/05/2020

Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 41 - Right to good administration

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU figurative marks We IntelliGence the World, currencymachineassistant, robodealer, currencyassistant, tradingcurrencyassistant, CKPL, moneypersonalassistant, moneyassistant, currencypersonalassistant, CNTX Trading, AIdealer and CNTX — Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing two intertwining circles or two overlapping circles — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

    1. Joins Cases T‑84/19 and T‑88/19 to T‑98/19 for the purposes of the judgment;
    2. Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 December 2018 (Cases R 1062/2018-2, R 1059/2018-2, R 1058/2018-2, R 1057/2018-2, R 1056/2018-2, R 1060/2018-2, R 1055/2018-2, R 1054/2018-2, R 1053/2018-2, R 986/2018-2, R 1063/2018-2 and R 1064/2018-2);
    3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;
    4. Orders MasterCard International, Inc. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    25) In support of the actions, the applicant puts forward four pleas, alleging, in each case, respectively:

    • First plea: infringement of Article 71(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation 2017/1001 and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ 2018 L 104, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);
    • Second plea: infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter;
    • Third plea: infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration; and
    • Fourth plea: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001.

    ...

    35) By the first plea in each of the cases, the applicant claims, in essence, that, since the Board of Appeal made the findings referred to in paragraphs 30 to 33 above, it should have suspended the appeal proceedings in order to avoid infringing Article 71(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, the requirements of clarity, consistency and efficiency underpinning that provision and the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41(2) of the Charter. In failing to do so, the Board of Appeal misused its powers. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed to take the interest of the parties into account, although it is required to do so when deciding whether or not it is appropriate to suspend the proceedings. The applicant adds, in essence, that the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for its final decision not to suspend the proceedings even though it had considered suspension to be appropriate.