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 62017TN0063

    Case T-63/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)

    OJ C 95, 27.3.2017, p. 23–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.3.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 95/23

    Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)

    (Case T-63/17)

    (2017/C 095/31)

    Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Grupo Orenes, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Akamon Entertainment Millenium, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

    Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

    Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bingo VIVA! Slots’ — Application for registration No 13 468 251

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2016 in Case R 453/2016-2

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Articles 64, 75, 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 read in conjunction, where appropriate, with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation and Rules 50 and 52 of Regulation 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and also the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting all those provisions.

    —

    Failure to make a proper overall comparison of the signs.
    Top