Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2022 г.

Текст

... ve ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

In Case T‑130/22,

Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, established in Baden-Baden (Germany), represented by J. Künzel, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by A. Ringelhann and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being

Esi Srl, established in Albisola Superiore (Italy),

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of M.J. Costeira, President, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur) and P. Zilgalvis, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

makes the following

Order

1. By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, seeks the partial annulment and partial alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2021 (Case R 813/2021-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

2. On 26 January 2017, the legal predecessor of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, Esi Srl, filed with EUIPO, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), as amended and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on ...