Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2018 г.

Текст

... n (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

In Case T‑207/17,

Senetic S.A., established in Katowice (Poland), represented by M. Krekora, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by L. Rampini, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC, established in Houston, Texas (United States), represented by T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1001/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of M. Prek, President, E. Buttigieg and B. Berke (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

having regard to the application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 5 April 2017,

having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 12 July 2017,

having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 3 July 2017,

having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the ...