Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2024 –  
Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO – Vorwarts Pharma (HYALERA)

(Case T‑497/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0497_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark HYALERA – Earlier national word mark HYAL – 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 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 17, 18, 38, 86, 87, 95, 101, 102) |

| 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 – Level of attention of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 19) |

| 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 23) |

| 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 marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 26, 28, 29, 40, 83) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks HYALERA and HYAL  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 74, 77, 85, 100, 111, 113, 114) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)  (see paragraph 80) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 May 2023 (Case R 230/2023-5); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO and Vorwarts Pharma sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0497_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 338, 25.9.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:338:TOC).

[Top](#document1)