CELEX: 62016TN0004
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-4/16: Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)

2.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/49
            
         Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)
   (Case T-4/16)
   (2016/C 156/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Rabbit, Inc. (Redwood City, United States) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, J. Stephenson, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DMG Media Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘rabbit’ — Application for registration No 11 701 869
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2133/2014-2
   
      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 was wrong in law in stating that, when comparing the respective goods/services of the EU trade mark application and the opponent’s EU trade mark registration, the comparison must consider only the goods and services as mentioned in the lists and not in the light of the actual use made of the marks;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for discounting actual evidence of use;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal failed to take proper account of the descriptiveness of the ‘rabbit’ mark.