CELEX: 62017TN0832
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-832/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)

19.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/21
            
         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)
   (Case T-832/17)
   (2018/C 063/28)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘achtung!’ — International registration No 1 297 443
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 in Case R 490/2017-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4);
            
         
               —
            
            
               amend the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4) in such a way that international registration No 1 297 443 ‘achtung!’ (word/figure) is protected for the European Union;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The defendant, it submits, erred in law in assessing the distinctive character of the trade mark under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and infringed the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.