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 62016TN0817

    Case T-817/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)

    IO C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 49–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    21/11/2016
    Date lodged:
    21/11/2016
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Gearmáinis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    23.1.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 22/49

    Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)

    (Case T-817/16)

    (2017/C 022/67)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)

    Details of the procedure before EUIPO

    Party applying for the mark: Applicant

    Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a ‘V’) — Application No 10 263 978

    Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 2030/2015-4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety;

    —

    in the alternative, amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is also rejected for the goods ‘Goods made of leather or imitations of leather; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; wallets; bags and pouches; rucksacks; belt bags; briefcases; school satchels; school satchels for sport; beach bags; keyrings; hip bags; card cases’ in Class 18 and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; belts; gloves’ in Class 25;

    —

    in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law

    —

    infringement of Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;

    —

    infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    infringement of the first sentence of Article 60, Article 63(2) and the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of reformatio in peius as well as of the right to be heard.
    Top