CELEX: 62017TN0109
Language: en
Date: 2017-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-109/17: Action brought on 21 February 2017 — FCA US v EUIPO — Busbridge (VIPER)

18.4.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 121/42
            
         Action brought on 21 February 2017 — FCA US v EUIPO — Busbridge (VIPER)
   (Case T-109/17)
   (2017/C 121/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: FCA US LLC (City of Auburn Hills, Michigan, United States) (represented by: C. Morcom, QC)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert Dennis Busbridge (Hookwood, United Kingdom)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘VIPER’ — EU trade mark No 3 871 101
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 554/2016-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decisions of the Cancellation Division and of the First Board of Appeal and that the application by Mr. Busbridge be remitted to the Cancellation Division for the appropriate action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Applicant also seeks an order for costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of appeal was wrong in concluding that Mr Busbridge had proved use in relation to the goods covered by the UK registration (namely ‘Sports cars’);
            
         
               —
            
            
               The evidence submitted by Mr Busbridge was wholly inadequate to prove use that was ‘genuine’ as required by Art. 57 (2) and (3) of Regulation no 207/2009.