Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2018
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2018
Data
- Court
- General Court
- Case date
- 25 september 2018
Verdict
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2018 –
Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)
(Case T‑182/17)
"(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark AKANTO - Earlier EU word mark KANTOS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))"
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markCriteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 16, 17, 60)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markAssessment of the likelihood of confusionDetermination of the relevant publicAttention level of the publicMedicinal products
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 19, 21)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markWord marks AKANTO and KANTOS
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 22, 30-35, 41, 42, 51, 64-67)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity between the goods or services in questionCriteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 23)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity of the marks concernedCriteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 26)
EU trade markDecisions of the OfficePrinciple of equal treatmentPrinciple of sound administrationEUIPO’s previous decision-making practicePrinciple of legalityNeed for a strict and complete examination in each particular case
(Council Regulation No 207/2009)
(see paras 56-58)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 531/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Chiesi Farmaceutici and Novartis.
Operative part
The Court:
Dismisses the action;
Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.