Action brought on 27 August 2019 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)

(Case T-588/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: M. Ringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Power Stars — Application for registration No 8 435 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 2038/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal concerning the revocation of EU trade mark registration No 8 435 695 in respect of the goods ‘hardware, in particular for casino and amusement arcade games, for gaming machines, slot machines, video lottery gaming machines via the internet; casino games, automatic gaming machines and gaming machines, in particular for commercial use in casinos and amusement arcades, with or without a prize payout or games of chance via the internet; slot machines and/or electronic money gaming machines with or without a prize; electronic or electrotechnical gaming apparatus, automatic gaming machines, gaming machines, slot machines which are operated by means of coins, tokens, banknotes, tickets or by means of electronic, magnetic or biometric storage media, in particular for commercial use in casinos and amusement arcades, with or without a prize payout; housings for slot machines, gaming apparatus, gaming machines and gaming machines; electric, electronic or electromechanical apparatus for applying bingo games, lottery games or video lottery games or for betting offices, and which are connected or unconnected; electropneumatic drawing machines (gaming machines)’ and amend that decision so that the other party’s application for cancellation is rejected to that extent and also that the other party is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings;

in the alternative: annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal concerning the revocation of EU trade mark registration No 8 435 695 in respect of the above goods and refer the case back, to that extent, to EUIPO;

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

____________