Case T-303/22: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2023 — Dicofarm v EUIPO — Marco Viti Farmaceutici (Vitis pharma Dicofarm group) (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)
Date: 2023-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, cosmetic product, honey, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, scientific research, tea, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2023223EN.01002502.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/25






Judgment of the General Court 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)
(2023/C 223/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Dicofarm SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marco Viti Farmaceutici SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of 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).

Operative part of the judgment

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.