Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 March 2022 –
Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Nordesta (APIAL)
(Case T‑315/21) (1)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark APIAL – Earlier EU word mark APIRETAL – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)
(see para. 18)
2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)
(see para. 19)
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 – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 21, 22, 37)
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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 24)
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 APIAL and APIRETAL
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 29, 35, 42, 43)
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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 30)
7. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see para. 36)
8. 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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 46, 50)
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |