EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0824
Case T-824/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)
Case T-824/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)
Case T-824/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)
OJ C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 51–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.1.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/51 |
Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)
(Case T-824/16)
(2017/C 022/69)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Kiosked Oy Ab (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (Brussels, Belgium)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘K’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 112 969
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 279/2016-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) of 21 September 2016, in case No. R0279/2016-4 to accept the opposition by VRT, NV van publiek recht and reject the registration of International registration designating European No W01112969 K (fig.) (hereinafter the ‘K LOGO’) for the following services in classes 35 ‘Advertising, business management, business administration, office functions’ and 42 ‘Design and development of computer software’ and allows the K LOGO to proceed for registration for the above said services; |
|
— |
order the Opponent to bear all the Appellant’s costs of the opposition proceedings, including the costs of legal representation, in accordance with the cost specification to be submitted by the Appellant within the deadline referred to in Article 85 of EUTMR, and should such specification fail to be submitted, in accordance with the relevant legislation. |
Plea in law
|
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |