CELEX: 62015TN0461
Language: en
Date: 2015-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-461/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)

5.10.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/32
            
         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)
   (Case T-461/15)
   (2015/C 328/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of interlaced signs) — Community trade mark No 5 538 012
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2049/2014-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Guess? IP Holder L.P. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before both the OHIM Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               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.