This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0082
Case T-82/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
Case T-82/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
Case T-82/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
IO C 136, 18.4.2016, p. 38–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.4.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 136/38 |
Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
(Case T-82/16)
(2016/C 136/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, A. Alpera Plazas, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE EVOLUTION’ — Application for registration No 11 968 138
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 725/2015-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
admit the application; |
|
— |
annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
|
— |
order the registration of the EU mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION in all the goods and services it seeks protection; |
|
— |
order EUIPO and/or the opponent to bear the fees and costs. |
Plea in law
|
— |
The Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the confronted signs. |