CELEX: 62016TN0090
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-90/16: Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)

2.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/51
            
         Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate
   (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)
   (Case T-90/16)
   (2016/C 156/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Blackrock, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, United States)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Design at issue: Community design ‘measuring instruments, apparatus and devices’ — Community design No 2 159 640-0002
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 736/2014-3
   
      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 failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal failed to make a proper, close, factually correct and realistic assessment of the overall impression of the competing designs and then apply that assessment to those designs when considering the question of individual character.