CELEX: 62016TN0911
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-911/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)

20.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 53/44
            
         Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)
   (Case T-911/16)
   (2017/C 053/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TESTA ROSSA’ — EU trade mark No 7 070 519
   
      Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and declared the applicant’s mark to be revoked in respect of Classes 7, 11, 20, parts of Classes 21 and 25, Class 28, parts of Class 30, and Classes 34 and 38, and in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division of 17 November 2015 in that regard (however, the part of the contested decision upholding the applicant’s appeal remains unchallenged by the applicant);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) thereof.