- 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-403/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Urgo recherche innovation et développement (Immunostad) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Immunostad — Earlier national word mark ImmunoStim — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Non-negligible part of the relevant public — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0403
62016TA0403
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
15.1.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 13/14
(Case T-403/16)(1)
((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Immunostad - Earlier national word mark ImmunoStim - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Non-negligible part of the relevant public - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 013/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, D. Botis and, subsequently, D. Walicka, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Urgo recherche innovation et développement, formerly Société de développement et de recherche industrielle, then Vivatech (Chenôve, France) (represented by: A. Sion and A. Delafond-Nielsen, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Case R 863/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vivatech and Stada Arzneimittel.
Operative part of the judgment
The General Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.
OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.