CELEX: 62016TN0372
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-372/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)

29.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 314/34
            
         Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)
   (Case T-372/16)
   (2016/C 314/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Männerspielplatz’ — European Union trade mark No 8 534 364
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1796/2016-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services.