Case T-803/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SALMEX — Earlier three-dimensional national mark — Competence of the Board of Appeal to examine of its own motion whether the earlier mark had been put to genuine use — Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)
(Case T-803/16) ( 1 )
‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SALMEX — Earlier three-dimensional national mark — Competence of the Board of Appeal to examine of its own motion whether the earlier mark had been put to genuine use — Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’
2018/C 249/31Language of the case: EnglishParties
Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, T. St Quintin, S. Wickenden, Barristers, E. Morris and R. Jacob, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland) (represented by: M. Krasiński, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2108/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Celon Pharma.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2108/2015-4); |
2. |
Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Glaxo Group Ltd during the proceedings before the General Court; |
3. |
Orders Celon Pharma S.A. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court. |
( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.