CELEX: 62016TN0406
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-406/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)

3.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 364/17
            
         
      Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)
      (Case T-406/16)
      (2016/C 364/14)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Dogg Label (Marseille, France) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Other party before the Board of Appeal: Patrick Chemoul (Paris, France)
      
         Details of the procedure before EUIPO
      
      
         Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other party before the Board of Appeal
      
         Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘JAPRAG’ — EU trade mark No 8 820 301
      
         Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 2336/2015-2
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to assent to the action for annulment brought by the company DOGG LABEL;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare invalid the Community trade mark ‘JAPRAG’ No 8 820 301 for all the goods in Classes 18 and 25, on the basis of Article 53(1)(a) of the EU trade mark regulation in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.