# C_2016118EN.01003702.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/37

---

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

(Case T-72/16)

(2016/C 118/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY mobile’ — Application for registration No 7 213 424

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 53/2015-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137;

| — | accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark.

---