EN
C 252/46
Official Journal of the European Union
17.7.2023
Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS) (Case T-227/22) (1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CYLUS — Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) (2023/C 252/53) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Cylus Cyber Security Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: S. Bailey, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cylance, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by B. Levy, lawyer)
Re: By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 February 2022 (Case R 692/2020-4).
Operative part of the judgment The Court hereby: 1.
Dismisses the action; 2.
Orders Cylus Cyber Security Ltd to pay the costs.
(1)
OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO) (Case T-239/22) (1) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark RIALTO — No genuine use of the trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) (2023/C 252/54) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Cherusci Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LexDellmeier Intellectual Property Law Firm (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Bogatz, Y. Stone and C. Dory, lawyers)
Re: By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 695/2021-2).