CELEX: 62015TN0561
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-561/15: Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v OHIM — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR)

23.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 389/63
            
         Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v OHIM — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR)
   (Case T-561/15)
   (2015/C 389/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa and A. Porras Fernandez-Toledano, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR’ — Application for registration No 11 738 093
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2015 in Case R 1914/2014-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision insofar as OHIM rejected Community trade mark application No 11 738 093 and, accordingly, allow the registration to proceed;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   The applicant claims that:
   
               —
            
            
               the contested decision fails to correctly identify the average consumers of the actual goods or services;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the contested decision fails to carry out an adequate analysis of the likelihood of confusion.