Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2017 г.

Текст

... m — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Non-negligible part of the relevant public — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

In Case T‑403/16,

Stada Arzneimittel AG, established in Bad Vilbel (Germany), represented by R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented initially by D. Botis, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the intervener before the General Court, formerly Société de développement et de recherche industrielle, then Vivatech, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, being

Urgo recherche innovation et développement, established in Chenôve (France), represented by A. Sion and A. Delafond-Nielsen, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Case R 863/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vivatech and Stada Arzneimittel,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),

composed of I. Pelikánová, President, P. Nihoul and J. Svenningsen (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: I. Dragan, Administrator,

having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 28 July 2016,

having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 10 February 2017,

having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 30 January 2017,

further to the ...