62018TJ0732_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 February 2020 –Dalasa v EUIPO — Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin (charantea)
(Case T‑732/18)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark charantea — Earlier EU figurative mark CHARITÉ — Relative ground for refusal — No 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 earlier identical or similar 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, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 14, 15, 71, 72)
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 — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 16)
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 — 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. 17)
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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 23, 24, 28)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 31-33, 35)
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 — Word marks charantea and CHARITÉ
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 48-51, 62, 70, 79-82)
7.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction addressed to the Office — Not included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))
(see para. 85)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 539/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Charité and Dalasa.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 October 2018 (Case R 539/2018-4);
2.
Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH in the proceedings before the General Court;
3.
Orders Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts to bear the costs that it has incurred during the proceedings before the General Court;
4.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder.