Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/51 |

---

Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate

(Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)

(Case T-90/16)

(2016/C 156/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Blackrock, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design ‘measuring instruments, apparatus and devices’ — Community design No 2 159 640-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 736/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to make a proper, close, factually correct and realistic assessment of the overall impression of the competing designs and then apply that assessment to those designs when considering the question of individual character. |

---

[Top](#document1)