Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 —
Mundipharma v OHIM — AFT Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic)
(Case T‑328/12)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Maxigesic — Earlier Community word mark OXYGESIC — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 18, 19, 58, 62)
2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 27)
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 Maxigesic and OXYGESIC (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31, 47, 49, 51, 53, 68)
4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33)
5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Breakdown of a word sign into word elements having concrete significance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 65)
6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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. 65)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2012 (Case R 1788/2010‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma GmbH and AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Mundipharma GmbH to pay the costs. |