CELEX: 62017TN0724
Language: en
Date: 2017-10-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-724/17: Action brought on 17 October 2017 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)

15.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 13/21
            
         Action brought on 17 October 2017 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)
   (Case T-724/17)
   (2018/C 013/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: The Vianel Group LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Perrichon, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viania Dessous GmbH (Mössingen, Germany)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘VIANEL’ — Application for registration No 1 181 484
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 in Case R 285/2017-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               uphold the applicant’s application;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Opponent to pay the Applicant’s costs of this Application and the proceedings before the Office.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal infringed the applicable provisions of the European Trade Mark Regulation when it assessed the relevance of the evidence of use filed by the opponent, the similarity of the goods and of the signs in question, and the risk of confusion.