It is therefore also in total contradiction with point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 10 December 2015, Vieta (T‐690/14, not published, EU:T:2015:950), which had also acquired the force of res judicata (see paragraph 35 above), that the Fourth Board of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 23 August 2013, thus reaffirming that the rejection of the application for revocation of the contested mark for ‘apparatus for the reproduction of sound and images’, as decided by the Cancellation Division in its aforementioned decision and subsequently by the Second Board of Appeal in the first decision, was well founded.
Stoga je i u suprotnosti s točkom 1. izreke presude od 10. prosinca 2015., Vieta (T-690/14, neobjavljena, EU:T:2015:950), koja je također postala pravomoćna (vidjeti točku 35. ove presude), četvrto žalbeno vijeće odbilo tužiteljevu žalbu protiv odluke Odjela za poništaje od 23. kolovoza 2013. i tako ponovno potvrdilo osnovanost odbijanja zahtjeva za opoziv osporavanog žiga za „uređaje za reprodukciju zvuka i slika”, kako je odlučio Odjel za poništaje u svojoj gore navedenoj odluci, a zatim drugo žalbeno vijeće u prvoj odluci.eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 eurlex-diff-2018-06-20