CELEX: 62017TN0104
Language: en
Date: 2017-02-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-104/17: Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)

24.4.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/23
            
         Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)
   (Case T-104/17)
   (2017/C 129/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei City, Taiwan)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘apo’ — Application for registration No 11 293 628
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 698/2016-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               uphold the Applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The contested decision offends against the principle of reformatio in peius;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the passing off claim under Article 8(4) was not substantiated.