CELEX: 62016TN0709
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-709/16: Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Representation of an angular figure)

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/26
            
         Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Representation of an angular figure)
   (Case T-709/16)
   (2016/C 462/34)
   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 — Application for registration No 11 778 727
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2016 in Case R 2332/2015-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision inasmuch as it ‘[annulled] the contested decision and [rejected] the opposition insofar as it concerns registration of the mark at issue for the following goods: ‘school bags; briefcases; school satchels’ in Class 18 and ‘[rejected] the remainder of the appeal’ and authorise registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Lack of likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal based its finding of a likelihood of confusion on the alleged intellectual resemblances, yet they do not immediately strike the consumer.