Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2022 –
UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO – Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)
(Case T‑149/21) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark VITADHA – Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
|
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 – Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute – Review of the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion – Findings not challenged as regards the factors that are essential to the analysis of that likelihood of confusion – Effect (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 19) |
|
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public – Health products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28) |
|
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 – Coexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 103-106, 114-116) |
|
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38) |
|
5. |
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 39) |
|
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 VITADHA and VITANADH (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 46, 52, 58, 62, 93, 107-112) |
|
7. |
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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 66-69, 78-80) |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs. |