Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)

(Case T‑502/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OCTASA — Earlier national, Benelux and international word marks PENTASA and OCTOSTIM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25, 39, 69)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 mark OCTASA — Word marks PENTASA and OCTOSTIM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 36, 71, 72)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1216/2011‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring BV and Tillotts Pharma AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1216/2011-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ferring BV;

3. Orders Tillotts Pharma AG to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ferring.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)

(Case T‑502/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OCTASA — Earlier national, Benelux and international word marks PENTASA and OCTOSTIM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25, 39, 69)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 mark OCTASA — Word marks PENTASA and OCTOSTIM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 36, 71, 72)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1216/2011‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring BV and Tillotts Pharma AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1216/2011-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ferring BV;