Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2023 –  
Vitromed v EUIPO – Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)

(Case T‑514/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0514_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(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](#c-ECR_62022TJ0514_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 380, 3.10.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:380:TOC).

[Top](#document1)