CELEX: 62018TN0527
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-527/18: Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

22.10.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 381/30
            
         
      Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)
      (Case T-527/18)
      (2018/C 381/35)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnium, SA (Manresa, Spain)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant
      
         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tec.nicum’ — European Union trade mark No 13 626 791
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2427/2017-5
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Incorrect identification of the relevant public;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  No similarity between the services;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  No similarity between the opposing marks;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  No likelihood of confusion.