Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0911

    Case T-911/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)

    OJ C 53, 20.2.2017, p. 44–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    20.2.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 53/44

    Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)

    (Case T-911/16)

    (2017/C 053/54)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany)

    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 ‘TESTA ROSSA’ — EU trade mark No 7 070 519

    Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and declared the applicant’s mark to be revoked in respect of Classes 7, 11, 20, parts of Classes 21 and 25, Class 28, parts of Class 30, and Classes 34 and 38, and in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division of 17 November 2015 in that regard (however, the part of the contested decision upholding the applicant’s appeal remains unchallenged by the applicant);

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) thereof.
    Top