Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 March 2022 –  
Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO – Giuliani (IALO TSP)

(Case T‑333/20) (
[1](#t-ECR_62020TJ0333_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark IALO TSP – Earlier international word mark HYALO – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Identification of a member of the Board of Appeal – Article 165(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Condition of admissibility – Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(1))  (see para. 34) |

| 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 40-43, 48, 67, 100-102) |

| 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 – Coexistence of earlier marks – Acknowledgement of a certain degree of distinctive character of an international trade mark designating the European Union  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 54) |

| 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 – Conceptual similarity  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 66, 68, 90, 91) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks IALO TSP and HYALO  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 94, 95, 106, 107, 123) |

| 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 118) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs – Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 119) |

| 8. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions  (Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paras 128-131) |

| 9. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – 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  (see paras 135, 136) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Fidia farmaceutici SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |

| 3. | Orders Giuliani SpA to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62020TJ0333_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2020:255:TOC)

[Top](#document1)