Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/17

—

(Case C-125/19 P)

(2019/C 220/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Vans, Inc. (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Deichmann SE

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16 and dismiss the action;

—order Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court incorrectly proceeded on the basis that Deichmann had sufficiently substantiated the earlier marks; in particular, the General Court interpreted the concept of ‘equivalent document’ under Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) too broadly.

Contrary to what the General Court found, an extract from the TMView database is not an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95; this is apparent, first, from the clear wording of the provision, which refers, in respect of authorised equivalent documents, to the nature, not the origin, of the document, and, second, from the rationale behind the provision.

Nor can an extract from TMView be established as substantiating evidence on the basis of the properties of the database.

The opposition would therefore — as the Board of Appeal correctly established — have to be rejected simply because the earlier rights were not substantiated.

—

Language of the case: German.

* * *