62022TJ0303_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2023 –Dicofarm v EUIPO – Marco Viti Farmaceutici (Vitis pharma Dicofarm group)
(Case T‑303/22) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Vitis pharma Dicofarm group – Earlier national figurative mark viti DREN – Relative ground for invalidity – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Weak similarity of the goods and services – No likelihood of confusion)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)
(see paragraph 18)
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 – Precluded
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see paragraph 19)
3.
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 30, 31)
4.
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 – 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 paragraphs 33, 41)
5.
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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 35, 94)
6.
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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 45, 51-53, 57, 63, 83, 88, 95, 96)
7.
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative marks Vitis pharma Dicofarm group and viti DREN
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 97-103)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 March 2022 (Case R 1050/2021-2) in so far as it concerns:
–
Class 3: ‘Pomades, creams, ointments, lotions, gels and other preparations, all the aforesaid for cosmetic purposes; detergent preparations for personal use; scented room fragrances; deodorants for body care; non-medicated cosmetics excluding mouthwashes; toiletry preparations; perfumery, essential oils’;
–
Class 29: ‘Pollen prepared as foodstuff’;
–
Class 30: ‘Honey; bee glue; bee glue (propolis) for human consumption; royal jelly; non-medical herbal teas; herb teas, other than for medicinal use; infusions, not medicinal; tea extracts, tea; honey’;
–
Class 40: ‘Custom manufacture of pharmaceuticals; custom manufacture of biopharmaceuticals; treatment of biopharmaceutical materials; all the aforementioned services with the exclusion of oral and dental services’;
–
Class 42: ‘Scientific research; consultancy in relation to scientific research; provision of scientific information; biological research; chemical research and analysis services; genetic research and analysis; cosmetic research; research in the field of nutrition; research relating to food; pharmaceutical research, with the exclusion of oral and dental research; research and development in the field of biotechnology; product research and development with the exclusion of oral and dental research and development; scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software’;
2.
dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.
declares that Dicofarm SpA, EUIPO and Marco Viti Farmaceutici SpA are to bear their own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.