Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2023 –  
Prolactal v EUIPO – Prolàctea (PROLACTAL)

(Case T‑549/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0549_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark PROLACTAL – Earlier national figurative mark Prolàctea – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 27(4))  (see paragraphs 24-28, 31) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Coexistence of earlier marks – Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii))  (see paragraphs 51, 55, 61) |

| 3. | 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  (Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paragraphs 66, 67) |

| 4. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see paragraphs 73, 74) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Prolactal GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Prolàctea, SA; |

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0549_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 408, 24.10.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:408:TOC).

[Top](#document1)