CELEX: 62016TN0082
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-82/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)

18.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 136/38
            
         Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
   (Case T-82/16)
   (2016/C 136/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, A. Alpera Plazas, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE EVOLUTION’ — Application for registration No 11 968 138
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 725/2015-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               admit the application;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the registration of the EU mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION in all the goods and services it seeks protection;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO and/or the opponent to bear the fees and costs.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the confronted signs.