Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62016TN0110

Case T-110/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)

OJ C 175, 17.5.2016, p. 20–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/20

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)

(Case T-110/16)

(2016/C 175/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Savant Systems LLC (Osterville, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: O. Nilgen, A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Savant Group Ltd (Burton in Kendal, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SAVANT’ — EU trade mark No 32 318

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 33/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision insofar as protection of the contested EU trademark No 32 318 ‘SAVANT’ was maintained with regard to ‘computer software’ in class 9 and for all services in classes 41 and 42;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in connection with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009 insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the proprietor had proven genuine use of the contested CTM for the goods and services as registered, in particular ‘computer software’ and the related services in classes 41 and 42;

—

Infringement, by the Board of Appeal, of the obligation to state reasons why it did not take the ‘in use investigation’ report into consideration.
Top