- 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-665/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2023 — SkinIdent v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10 — National trade mark and international registration of earlier word mark SKINIDENT — Earlier company name Skinident — Relative grounds for refusal — Absence of a likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Sector proximity — Application of national law by EUIPO — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TA0665
62022TA0665
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
Series C
C/2024/547
(Case T-665/22) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10 - National trade mark and international registration of earlier word mark SKINIDENT - Earlier company name Skinident - Relative grounds for refusal - Absence of a likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Sector proximity - Application of national law by EUIPO - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2024/547)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: SkinIdent AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, J. Fuhrmann and A. Malkmes, lawyers)
Re:
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 August 2022 (Case R 1499/2021-5).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders SkinIdent AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Beiersdorf AG;
3.Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.
(*)
Language of the case: German.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/547/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
* * *
C/2024/547
Language of the case: German
* * *