CELEX: 62016TN0072
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-72/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

4.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/37
            
         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
   (Case T-72/16)
   (2016/C 118/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY mobile’ — Application for registration No 7 213 424
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 53/2015-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137;
            
         
               —
            
            
               accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark.