62022TJ0514_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2023 –Vitromed v EUIPO – Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)
(Case T‑514/22) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany – International registration of the earlier figurative mark VITROMED – 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 – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 23, 66, 70)
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 – 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 27, 30)
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 – Figurative marks VITROMED Germany and VITROMED
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 33, 40, 50, 54, 58, 63, 65, 68-72)
4.
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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 34, 39, 41)
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 of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 43, 44)
6.
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 paragraph 64)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Vitromed GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vitromed Healthcare;
3.
Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.