Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:824
Date: 2017-11-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 20 November 2017 – Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO – Urgo recherche innovation and développement (Immunostad) (Case T-403/16) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Immunostad — Earlier national word mark ImmunoStim — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)( a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Non-negligible part of the relevant public — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)) 1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 14, 40, 41, 49, 50, 66) 2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Word marks Immunostad and ImmunoStim (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 16, 17, 60) 3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 18) 4. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 65) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Case R 863/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vivatech and Stada Arzneimittel. Operative part The General Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.