CELEX: 62016TN0345
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-345/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

29.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 314/29
            
         Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
   (Case T-345/16)
   (2016/C 314/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 880/2015-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill.