Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2018 –  
Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)

(Case T‑182/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark AKANTO — Earlier EU word mark KANTOS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 16, 17, 60) |

| 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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Determination of the relevant public—Attention level of the public—Medicinal products  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 19, 21) |

| 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—Word marks AKANTO and KANTOS  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 22, 30-35, 41, 42, 51, 64-67) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 23) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 26) |

| 6. | EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see paras 56-58) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 531/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Chiesi Farmaceutici and Novartis.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)