Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2022 –  
UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO – Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)

(Case T‑149/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0149_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark VITADHA – Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH – 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 – 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 – Review of the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion – Findings not challenged as regards the factors that are essential to the analysis of that likelihood of confusion – Effect  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)  (see para. 19) |

| 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 – Health products  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 28) |

| 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 – Criteria for assessment – Coexistence of two marks on a given market  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 31, 103-106, 114-116) |

| 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 paras 37, 38) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 39) |

| 6. | 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 VITADHA and VITANADH  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 42, 46, 52, 58, 62, 93, 107-112) |

| 7. | 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 66-69, 78-80) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0149_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2021:182:TOC)

[Top](#document1)