Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TA0718

    Case T-718/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com — Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

    OJ C 255, 3.8.2020, p. 15–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    3.8.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 255/15


    Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com)

    (Case T-718/18) (1)

    (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com - Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

    (2020/C 255/19)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Boyer (Moissac, France) (represented by: É. Junca, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, A. Folliard-Monguiral, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Philicon-97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: V. Pavlov and M. Lazarov, lawyers)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 374/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and Boyer.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Boyer to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.


    Top