CELEX: 62016TN0336
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-336/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)

16.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/35
            
         Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)
   (Case T-336/16)
   (2016/C 296/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO’ — Application for registration No 11 992 435
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1005/2015-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               uphold the present action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 992 435 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the other party to pay the costs.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The applicant maintains that the decision of 6 April 2016 is vitiated by the scant examination of the evidence demonstrating insufficient use of the marks activated by the other party, and by the failure to examine carefully the likelihood of confusion between the marks and the goods in question in the light of all the relevant factors.