EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0230
Case T-230/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
Case T-230/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
Case T-230/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
OJ C 178, 6.6.2017, p. 32–33
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.6.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 178/32 |
Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
(Case T-230/17)
(2017/C 178/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and G. Smith, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)
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 word mark ‘RSTUDIO’ –International registration designating the European Union No 999 644
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 493/2016-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
— |
order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below; in the alternative, if the potential intervener actually intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener to be jointly and severally liable for the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below. |
Pleas in law
— |
The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the goods for which proof of use had been established and, accordingly, failed to conduct the correct comparison of goods; |
— |
The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the similarity of the relevant goods and the similarity of the relevant marks and, accordingly, wrongly assessed the existence of the likelihood of confusion. |