Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 —  
Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL)

(Case T‑49/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL — Earlier EU word mark NEORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

| 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))  (see paras 17, 60-62) |

| 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—Attention level of the public—Medicinal products  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 21, 22, 28, 67, 68) |

| 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 marks NIMORAL and NEORAL  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 26, 27, 30, 53, 58, 59, 69) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 31, 32) |

| 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities—Conditions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 52) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 (Case R 634/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Azanta.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Azanta A/S to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)