This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TO0130
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2022.
Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark TRAUMGEL – Earlier EU word mark Traumeel – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T-130/22.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2022.
Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark TRAUMGEL – Earlier EU word mark Traumeel – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T-130/22.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:574
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2022 –
Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO – Esi (TRAUMGEL)
(Case T‑130/22) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark TRAUMGEL – Earlier EU word mark Traumeel – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
|
1. |
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 29, 30) |
|
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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 31-34, 40, 46, 48) |
|
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 – Figurative mark TRAUMGEL and word mark Traumeel (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 37-39, 41, 44, 47, 51, 52) |
|
4. |
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paragraphs 42, 43) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
|
2. |
Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH shall pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 171, 25.4.2022.