# C_2016314EN.01002801.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/28

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-344/16)

(2016/C 314/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

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 word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 736/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred by refusing registration of the mark for a greater range of goods and services than was justified by that evidence. The Board of Appeal erred in their application of the law of passing off by concluding there was a misrepresentation with respect to these goods and/or the Opponent’s goodwill extended to these goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred by refusing registration of the mark for a greater range of goods and services than was justified by that evidence. The Board of Appeal erred in their application of the law of passing off by concluding there was a misrepresentation with respect to these goods and/or the Opponent’s goodwill extended to these goods.

---