- 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-497/23: Action brought on 12 August 2023 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Vorwarts Pharma (HYALERA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0497
62023TN0497
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
25.9.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 338/41
(Case T-497/23)
(2023/C 338/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vorwarts Pharma sp. z o.o. (Białystok, Poland)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HYALERA — Application for registration No 18 195 287
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2023 in Case R 230/2023-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervene, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.
Pleas in law
—Violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principle of coexistence of national and Union trade marks as regards the characterisation of the earlier registered trade mark as descriptive, indistinctive and incapable to give rise to confusion;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principle of coexistence of national and Union trade marks as regards the decisions and evidence relied upon and the line of argument used;
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the absence of a likelihood of confusion.