This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0063
Case T-63/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)
Case T-63/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)
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. |