This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TA0098
Case T-98/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark medical beauty research — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Consideration of the facts — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Case T-98/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark medical beauty research — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Consideration of the facts — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Case T-98/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark medical beauty research — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Consideration of the facts — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
IO C 110, 29.3.2021, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.3.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 110/28 |
Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research)
(Case T-98/20) (1)
(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark medical beauty research - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Consideration of the facts - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 110/31)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Biochange Group GmbH (Bad Schlema, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: mysuperbrand GmbH, formerly Laubender GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Woller, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 114/2019-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Laubender and Biochange Group.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2019 (Case R 114/2019-2) as regards ‘baby food’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
|
2. |
Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
|
3. |
Orders Biochange Group GmbH, EUIPO and mysuperbrand GmbH each to bear their own costs. |