Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:818
Date: 2019-11-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2019 – August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes) (Case T‑643/18) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DermoFaes — Earlier EU word mark Dermowas — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) 1. 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 — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 16) 2. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19) 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 — Word marks DermoFaes and Dermowas (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-29, 37, 42, 50, 57) 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 54, 55) 5. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see para. 61) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 (Case R 1842/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.