CELEX: 62017TN0581
Language: en
Date: 2017-08-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-581/17: Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)

6.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 374/40
            
         Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)
   (Case T-581/17)
   (2017/C 374/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Asics Corporation (Kobe, Japan) (represented by: M. Polo Carreño, M. Granado Carpenter, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Van Lieshout textiel Agenturen BV (Berkel-Enschot, The Netherlands)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of four crossing lines) — Application for registration No 11 952 678
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 2129/2016-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Breach of the duty of the Board to revise the legality of the first instance decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.