Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 February 2023 –  
Hacker-Pschorr Bräu v EUIPO – Vandělíková (HACKER SPACE)

(Case T‑349/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0349_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark HACKER SPACE – Earlier EU word mark HACKER-PSCHORR and earlier EU figurative mark Hacker Pschorr, as well as earlier national word marks HACKERBRÄU and HACKER – Relative ground for refusal – Identification of the ground on which the opposition is based – Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 2(2)(c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Account taken – Facts and evidence determining the grounds on which the opposition is based – Precluded  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 46(1); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 2(2)(c) and (4))  (see paragraph 33) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Determination of the grounds on which the notice of opposition is based  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 46(1))  (see paragraph 40) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment –Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraphs 41, 49) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0349_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 284, 25.7.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:284:TOC).

[Top](#document1)