CELEX: 62018TN0004
Language: en
Date: 2018-01-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-4/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)

26.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/44
            
         Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)
   (Case T-4/18)
   (2018/C 072/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico city, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 11 197 647
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 2371/2016-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               admit the action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 11 197 647 ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof.