CELEX: 62017TA0831
Language: en
Date: 2018-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-831/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Flexagil — Genuine use of the mark — Article 18(1), second subparagraph,(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

21.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 25/41
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)
      (Case T-831/17) (1)
      
      ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Flexagil - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph,(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))
      (2019/C 25/53)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: DRH Licensing & Managing AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)
      
         Re:
      
      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2017 (Case R 2043/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between DRH Licensing & Managing and Merck.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Dismisses the action;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Orders DRH Licensing & Managing AG to pay the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.