Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:789
Date: 2024-11-06
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2024 – W.L. Gore & Associates v EUIPO – Angiokard med. Spritzguß (Cardioflow) (Case T‑1146/23) (1) ( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Cardioflow – Earlier EU word mark CARDIOFORM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 ) 1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 14, 15, 71, 75-78, 86, 87) 2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services – Medical equipment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34) 3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks Cardioflow and CARDIOFORM (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 32, 51, 59, 62, 65, 66, 73, 84, 85) 4. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraph 36) 5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 42-47) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders each party to bear its own costs. 1 OJ C 977, 29.1.2024.