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 62017TN0230

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.
Top