Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2019
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2019
Data
- Court
- General Court
- Case date
- 13 juni 2019
Verdict
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 –
Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX)
(Case T‑366/18)
"(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUIMOX - Earlier EU word mark ZYMOX - Obligation to state reasons - Notification of a decision of the Board of Appeal - Good faith and diligence on the part of the addressee - Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)"
1. EU trade markProcedural provisionsStatement of reasons for decisionsScopeExistence of clear shortcomings in the decision notified by the Board of AppealObligation of the recipient to report such shortcomings to the BoardGood faith and diligence of the recipient
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), 1st sentence)
(see para. 17)
2. EU trade markProcedural provisionsNotificationNotification by fax
(see paras 19, 20)
3. 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 SUIMOX and ZYMOX
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 23, 43, 83, 92, 98, 107, 112, 113, 116, 123)
4. 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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 46-48, 84, 101, 103, 108)
5. 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 assessmentComplementary nature of the goods or services
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 53, 54, 63)
6. 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 concerned
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 87, 96, 97)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pet King Brands and Virbac.
Operative part
The Court:
1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5) in so far as it concerns ‘veterinary preparations; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’, ‘veterinary preparations and animal health care products, including antibiotics for animals; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’ and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’;
2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.