# C_2016314EN.01003401.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/34

---

Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)

(Case T-372/16)

(2016/C 314/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Männerspielplatz’ — European Union trade mark No 8 534 364

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1796/2016-1

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;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts;

| — | In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services;

| — | The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services. |
| --- | --- |

—

The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services.

---