Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 February 2020 –  
Fleximed v EUIPO — docPrice (Fleximed)

(Case T‑214/19)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Fleximed — Earlier EU word mark mediFLEX — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

| 1. | Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)  (see para. 15) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 20, 50, 51, 62) |

| 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 — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 21, 61) |

| 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 — 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 paras 23, 24, 58, 59) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks Fleximed and mediFLEX  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))  (see paras 24, 25, 27, 37, 43, 48, 49, 55-57, 60) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 26) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 28, 31, 42, 47) |

| 8. | 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 29, 30) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2019 (case R 1121/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between docPrice and Fleximed.

Operative part

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |

| 2. | Fleximed AG is ordered to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)