Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑266/17

Kwizda Holding GmbH

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark UROAKUT — Earlier national and international figurative marks UroCys — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Power to alter decisions — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 20 September 2018

1. 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))
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 — Medicinal products

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
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 — Word mark UROAKUT and figurative marks UroCys

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
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))
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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
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 — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
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 — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
8. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3))

1. See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 17, 18, 71)
2. According to the case-law, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, account should be taken of the average consumer of the category of goods concerned, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

   First of all, it should be recalled that, when the goods in question are medicinal products or pharmaceutical products, the relevant public is composed of medical professionals, on the one hand, and patients, as the end consumers, on the other.

   Next, in accordance with the case-law, first, medical professionals have a high level of attentiveness when prescribing medicines. Second, with regard to end consumers, it is clear from the case-law that, in cases where pharmaceutical products are sold without prescription, it must be assumed that those goods will be of interest to consumers who are deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, since those goods affect their state of health, and that these consumers are less likely to confuse different categories of goods. Furthermore, even where a medical prescription is mandatory, consumers are likely to have a high level of attentiveness upon prescription of the goods at issue, in light of the fact that those goods are pharmaceutical products. Thus, medicinal products, whether or not issued on prescription, can be regarded as receiving a heightened level of attentiveness by consumers who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

   It follows from that case-law that those considerations are also applicable if the pharmaceutical products in question are intended to treat minor complaints and ailments.

   The same is true of dietetic products in general and of dietary supplements, which, strictly speaking, are not medicinal products, but nevertheless constitute goods in the field of health, since, in general, they are intended to improve health, and may be regarded as goods to which consumers who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect pay a high level of attention.

   (see paras 21, 25-28)
3. See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 29, 32, 33, 77, 80-82)
4. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 31)
5. See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 34, 39)
6. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 35)
7. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 47)
8. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 85)

[Top](#document1)