CELEX: 62016TN0710
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-710/16: Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (AEROBATIX)

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/27
            
         Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (AEROBATIX)
   (Case T-710/16)
   (2016/C 462/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: La Patrouille (Pantin, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpha Industries, Inc. (Chantilly, Virginia, United States of America)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘AEROBATIX’ — Application for registration No 13 285 952
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2016 in Case R 2344/2015-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision inasmuch as it rejected the mark applied for in respect of the goods ‘clothing, shoes; headgear’ and authorise registration of the mark applied for in respect of those goods;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Lack of likelihood of confusion
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal based its finding of a likelihood of confusion, in essence, on the alleged intellectual resemblances, yet they do not immediately strike the consumer.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal disregarded the importance of the word element AEROBATIX which, taken together with the figurative element, is sufficient to remove all likelihood of confusion.