CELEX: 62017TN0230
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-230/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)

6.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/32
            
         Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
   (Case T-230/17)
   (2017/C 178/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and G. Smith, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘RSTUDIO’ –International registration designating the European Union No 999 644
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 493/2016-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below; in the alternative, if the potential intervener actually intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener to be jointly and severally liable for the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the goods for which proof of use had been established and, accordingly, failed to conduct the correct comparison of goods;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the similarity of the relevant goods and the similarity of the relevant marks and, accordingly, wrongly assessed the existence of the likelihood of confusion.