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 62017TN0724

Case T-724/17: Action brought on 17 October 2017 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)

OJ C 13, 15.1.2018, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/21

Action brought on 17 October 2017 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)

(Case T-724/17)

(2018/C 013/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Vianel Group LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Perrichon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viania Dessous GmbH (Mössingen, Germany)

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 ‘VIANEL’ — Application for registration No 1 181 484

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 in Case R 285/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

uphold the applicant’s application;

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order the Opponent to pay the Applicant’s costs of this Application and the proceedings before the Office.

Plea in law

—

The Board of Appeal infringed the applicable provisions of the European Trade Mark Regulation when it assessed the relevance of the evidence of use filed by the opponent, the similarity of the goods and of the signs in question, and the risk of confusion.
Top