Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 March 2023 –  
Novartis v EUIPO – AstraZeneca (BREZTREV)

(Case T‑174/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0174_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark BREZTREV – Earlier EU word marks ONBREZ, DAYBREZ, BREZILIZER and BREEZHALER – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 14, 15, 72, 73) |

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 17, 21, 76) |

| 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 BREZTREV – Word marks ONBREZ, DAYBREZ, BREZILIZER and BREEZHALER  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 24, 39, 48, 50, 52, 61, 63, 65, 77, 78) |

| 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – 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 paragraphs 25, 28, 29, 38, 47, 51) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraph 37) |

| 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 – Likelihood of association – Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family – Conditions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 81-83) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0174_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 207, 23.5.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:207:TOC).

[Top](#document1)