This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TO0666
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2018.
NeoCell Holding Company LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Legal person governed by private law — No evidence of legal existence — Article 177(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility.
Case T-666/17.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2018.
NeoCell Holding Company LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Legal person governed by private law — No evidence of legal existence — Article 177(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility.
Case T-666/17.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2018 –
NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN)
(Case T‑666/17)
(EU trade mark — Legal person governed by private law — No evidence of legal existence — Article 177(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
|
1. |
Actions for annulment—Locus standi—Legal persons—Meaning—Possession of legal personality in accordance with national law (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(4)) (see para. 15) |
|
2. |
Judicial proceedings—Admissibility of actions—Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged (see para. 15) |
|
3. |
Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Locus standi—Action brought by a company no longer having legal personality at the time the action was brought following a merger agreement—No evidence of legal existence—Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(4)) (see paras 16, 18-20, 22-27) |
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 (Case R 147/2017-2), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN.
Operative part
|
1. |
The action is dismissed. |
|
2. |
NeoCell Corporation shall pay the costs. |