Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)

(Case T‑411/12)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET — Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 39)

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 — Word marks PHARMASTREET and PHARMASEE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 38, 41)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 25)

4.                     Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Possibility for the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);

2. Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.