Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 May 2023 –  
Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Biolark (BIOLARK)

(Case T‑459/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0459_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark BIOLARK – Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Meaning – Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant – Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision – Contested measure lapsing in the course of the proceedings – Interest in bringing proceedings retained  (Art. 263 TFEU)  (see paragraph 16) |

| 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 – Distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 26, 27, 95, 96) |

| 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 29) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraph 40) |

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 42, 45, 46, 72, 87) |

| 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 – Figurative mark BIOLARK  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 57, 67, 85, 86, 90, 100-102) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Refuses the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate made by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0459_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 340, 5.9.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:340:TOC).

[Top](#document1)