- 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-266/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark UROAKUT — Earlier national and international figurative marks UroCys — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Power to amend decisions — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0266
62017TA0266
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
5.11.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 399/34
(Case T-266/17) (*)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark UROAKUT - Earlier national and international figurative marks UroCys - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Power to amend decisions - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 399/46)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1221/2016-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dermapharm and Kwizda Holding.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1221/2016-4);
2.Rejects the opposition brought by Dermapharm GmbH;
3.Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by Kwizda Holding GmbH, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal;
4.Orders Dermapharm to bear its own costs.
*
(*) Language of the case: German.