CELEX: 62016TN0187
Language: en
Date: 2016-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-187/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)

4.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 243/37
            
         Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)
   (Case T-187/16)
   (2016/C 243/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITU’ – Application for registration No 12 684 833
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 719/2015-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               deliver a judgment accepting the action, fully annulling the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order to dismiss the European Union Trademark Application for the word mark LITU in relation to all the goods;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that the Defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings should bear the fees and costs.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.