# C_2016251EN.01003501.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/35 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

(Case T-206/16)

(2016/C 251/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRES TOROS 3’ — Application for registration No 12 796 926

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 407/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit its action against the contested decision, annul that decision and hold that:
1)
the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for; 2)
in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33. | 1) | the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for; | 2) | in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1) | the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for; | | | | |
| 2) | in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33. | | | | |

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs and to reimburse the appeal fees paid by the applicant to EUIPO, as the case may be. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article (7)(1)(j) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------ |

---