CELEX: 62017TN0565
Language: en
Date: 2017-08-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-565/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)

16.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/45
            
         Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
   (Case T-565/17)
   (2017/C 347/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Momondo Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   
      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 elements ‘Cheapflights’ — Application for registration No 3 485 349
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1893/2011-G
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO and Momondo Group Limited, if it should intervene in these proceedings to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 64(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The contested decision is replete with statements which question or directly negate the validity of the Applicant’s trademarks. The contested decision is detrimental to the interests of the Applicant as proprietor of validly registered trade mark which are not even subject to the jurisdiction of the Defendant.