I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
(2019/C 25/72)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Twitter, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PERISCOPE — Application for registration No 13 837 794
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 2315/2016-4
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision in so far as it held that (a) the earlier French mark no. 3 366 460 had been genuinely used for ‘software and computer programs’ in class 9, and (b) that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for goods and services in classes 9, 41, 42 and 45;
—order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal if it joins the proceedings as intervener.
—Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.