CELEX: 62017TN0266
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-266/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)

26.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 202/27
            
         Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)
   (Case T-266/17)
   (2017/C 202/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna, Austria)
   
      Details of the procedure before EUIPO
   
   
      Party applying for the mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘UROAKUT’ — application No 13 854 146
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1221/2016-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               uphold the action and amend the contested decision in such a way that the opposition to the EU trade mark application No 13 854 146 UROAKUT is rejected; in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.