CELEX: 62016TN0817
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-817/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)

23.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 22/49
            
         Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)
   (Case T-817/16)
   (2017/C 022/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)
   
      Details of the procedure before EUIPO
   
   
      Party applying for the mark: Applicant
   
      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a ‘V’) — Application No 10 263 978
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 2030/2015-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is also rejected for the goods ‘Goods made of leather or imitations of leather; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; wallets; bags and pouches; rucksacks; belt bags; briefcases; school satchels; school satchels for sport; beach bags; keyrings; hip bags; card cases’ in Class 18 and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; belts; gloves’ in Class 25;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               infringement of Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the first sentence of Article 60, Article 63(2) and the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of reformatio in peius as well as of the right to be heard.