CELEX: 62017TN0089
Language: en
Date: 2017-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-89/17: Action brought on 7 February 2017 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)

10.4.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/43
            
         Action brought on 7 February 2017 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)
   (Case T-89/17)
   (2017/C 112/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Erwin Müller GmbH (Lingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novus Tablet Technology Finland Oy (Turku, Finland)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NOVUS’ — Application for registration No 13 206 611
   
      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2016 in Case R 2413/2015-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul in part the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 2 October 2015, Application No B 2 456 336, namely in so far as they relate to goods in Class 9 — ‘bags adapted for laptops; holders adapted for mobile phones; computer peripheral devices’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.