Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:32
Date: 2017-01-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Ireland

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN) (Case T‑88/16) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ALPHAREN — Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Consideration of new evidence by the Board of Appeal following a judgment annulling a decision — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) 1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1), third subpara.) (see paras 46, 47, 49) 2. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Opportunity for the opposing party to adduce evidence in support of the opposition (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15, 18 and 19) (see para. 58) 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 65, 66, 76, 107) 4. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public — Medicinal products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 67, 71-73) 5. 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 — Word mark ALPHAREN and word marks ALPHA D 3 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 74, 110) 6. 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods — Medicinal products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 79-81) 7. 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 paras 89, 105) 8. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 101) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 (Case R 2387/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Opko Ireland Global Holdings. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.