- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-750/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TA0750
62021TA0750
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 179/37
(Case T-750/21) (1)
(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2023/C 179/53)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Beauty Biosciences LLC (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)
Re:
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4) in so far as it concerns ‘perfumes, toilet water, eau de Cologne; essential oils; incense, perfume water’ and ‘dentifrices’;
2.Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.
OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.
* * *
Language of the case: English