Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 February 2017 — Kessel medintim v EUIPO — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)

(Case T‑509/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Premeno — Earlier national word mark Pramino — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. 

EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Decisions of the Office—Observance of the rights of the defence—Scope of the principle

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence)

(see paras 22, 23)

2. 

EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Implementation of a judgment annulling a decision adopted by a Board of Appeal—New examination of the appeal—Observance of the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence)

(see paras 25, 26, 28)

3. 

Actions for annulment—Judgment annulling a measure—Effects—Obligation to implement—Scope—Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account

(Art. 266 TFEU)

(see para. 32)

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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 41-43, 72)

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 between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment—Complementary nature of the goods—Medicinal products

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 59, 60)

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—Word marks Premeno and Pramino

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 69, 71, 76, 77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 349/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Janseen-Cilag and Kessel medintim.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Kessel medintim GmbH to pay the costs.