CELEX: 62017TN0373
Language: en
Date: 2017-06-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-373/17: Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)

7.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/37
            
         Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)
   (Case T-373/17)
   (2017/C 256/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   
      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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE’ — Application for registration No 13 514 534
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1567/2016-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and thus refuse registration to the contested mark;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Fulia to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of legal certainty.