Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:126
Date: 2018-03-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to elements in an annex — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), 171 and 177(1)) (see para. 24) 2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 26, 27) 3. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier registered trade mark — Purposive interpretation — Renewal certificate sufficient as proof — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, rule 19(2)(a)(ii)) (see para. 41) 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 — Word marks NORMOSANG and NORMON (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 59, 66, 73, 80, 91-93) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 56, 64, 65, 70) 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment — Coexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 85-89) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2016 (Case R 831/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Normon and Recordati Orphan Drugs. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Recordati Orphan Drugs to pay the costs.