# C_2023338EN.01004101.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/41

---

Action brought on 12 August 2023 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Vorwarts Pharma (HYALERA)

(Case T-497/23)

(2023/C 338/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vorwarts Pharma sp. z o.o. (Białystok, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HYALERA — Application for registration No 18 195 287

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2023 in Case R 230/2023-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervene, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervene, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principle of coexistence of national and Union trade marks as regards the characterisation of the earlier registered trade mark as descriptive, indistinctive and incapable to give rise to confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principle of coexistence of national and Union trade marks as regards the characterisation of the earlier registered trade mark as descriptive, indistinctive and incapable to give rise to confusion;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principle of coexistence of national and Union trade marks as regards the decisions and evidence relied upon and the line of argument used; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principle of coexistence of national and Union trade marks as regards the decisions and evidence relied upon and the line of argument used;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the absence of a likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the absence of a likelihood of confusion.

---