Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 –  
Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO – OmniVision (Hydrovision)

(Case T‑817/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision – Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision – 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. | Judicial proceedings – Representation of the parties – Documents confirming the authorisation of the Applicant’s representative to practice before a court of a Member State or a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area– Need for translation into the language of the proceedings – None  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 46(2) and 51(2))  (see paras 21, 22) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 35, 36, 41, 112, 113) |

| 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public – Medicinal products  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 38-40) |

| 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 – Figurative mark Hydrovision and word mark Hylo-Vision  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 42, 45, 60, 70, 108, 115) |

| 5. | 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 para. 44) |

| 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 46, 47, 49, 56, 64, 68, 77, 80) |

| 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 50, 71) |

| 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 – Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 51, 52) |

| 9. | 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 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 114, 116-118) |

| 10. | EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see paras 123-126) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 2371/2018 2), relating to opposition proceedings between OmniVision and Olimp Laboratories.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Olimp Laboratories sp z o.o. to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)