CELEX: 62016TN0381
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-381/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)

3.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 364/14
            
         
      Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)
      (Case T-381/16)
      (2016/C 364/10)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Klaus Düll (Südergellersen, Germany) (represented by: S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cognitect, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States)
      
         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
      
      
         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
      
         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DaToMo’ — EU trade mark No 6 715 627
      
         Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  alter the contested decision to the effect that the restriction ‘all the aforementioned for the enterprise mobility management (EMM)’ is not added to the services which, following the abovementioned decision, remain listed in the class specification for Class 42 in the list of goods and services covered by trade mark No 6715627 DaToMo;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.
               
            
         Plea in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 50 of Regulation No 40/94.