Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2023 –  
Dicofarm v EUIPO – Marco Viti Farmaceutici (Vitis pharma Dicofarm group)

(Case T‑303/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0303_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Vitis pharma Dicofarm group – Earlier national figurative mark viti DREN – Relative ground for invalidity – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Weak similarity of the goods and services – No likelihood of confusion)

| 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 – Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered – Precluded  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)  (see paragraph 18) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)  (see paragraph 19) |

| 3. | 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 – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))  (see paragraphs 30, 31) |

| 4. | 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 – 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 33, 41) |

| 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))  (see paragraphs 35, 94) |

| 6. | 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))  (see paragraphs 45, 51-53, 57, 63, 83, 88, 95, 96) |

| 7. | 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 – Figurative marks Vitis pharma Dicofarm group and viti DREN  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a))  (see paragraphs 97-103) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 March 2022 (Case R 1050/2021-2) in so far as it concerns:   | – | Class 3: ‘Pomades, creams, ointments, lotions, gels and other preparations, all the aforesaid for cosmetic purposes; detergent preparations for personal use; scented room fragrances; deodorants for body care; non-medicated cosmetics excluding mouthwashes; toiletry preparations; perfumery, essential oils’; |  | – | Class 29: ‘Pollen prepared as foodstuff’; |  | – | Class 30: ‘Honey; bee glue; bee glue (propolis) for human consumption; royal jelly; non-medical herbal teas; herb teas, other than for medicinal use; infusions, not medicinal; tea extracts, tea; honey’; |  | – | Class 40: ‘Custom manufacture of pharmaceuticals; custom manufacture of biopharmaceuticals; treatment of biopharmaceutical materials; all the aforementioned services with the exclusion of oral and dental services’; |  | – | Class 42: ‘Scientific research; consultancy in relation to scientific research; provision of scientific information; biological research; chemical research and analysis services; genetic research and analysis; cosmetic research; research in the field of nutrition; research relating to food; pharmaceutical research, with the exclusion of oral and dental research; research and development in the field of biotechnology; product research and development with the exclusion of oral and dental research and development; scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software’; | |

| 2. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| 3. | declares that Dicofarm SpA, EUIPO and Marco Viti Farmaceutici SpA are to bear their own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0303_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 276, 18.7.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:276:TOC).

[Top](#document1)