- 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-666/17: Action brought on 29 September 2017 — NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0666
62017TN0666
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
8.1.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 5/45
(Case T-666/17)
(2018/C 005/61)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: NeoCell Holding Company LLC (Sunrise, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN’ — International registration No 1 298 829 designating the European Union
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 in Case R 147/2017-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—in the alternative, alter the contested decision to state that the application possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) or (c) of the Regulation;
—order the defendant to pay to the application the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.
Plea in law
—Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.