Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TJ0088

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2017.
Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ALPHAREN — Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Consideration of new evidence by the Board of Appeal following a judgment annulling a decision — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-88/16.

Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 —
Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T‑88/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ALPHAREN — Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Consideration of new evidence by the Board of Appeal following a judgment annulling a decision — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. 

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1), third subpara.)

(see paras 46, 47, 49)

2. 

EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Opportunity for the opposing party to adduce evidence in support of the opposition

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15, 18 and 19)

(see para. 58)

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

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

(see paras 65, 66, 76, 107)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public — Medicinal products

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

(see paras 67, 71-73)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark ALPHAREN and word marks ALPHA D 3

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

(see paras 74, 110)

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 — 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 79-81)

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 — Criteria for assessment

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

(see paras 89, 105)

8. 

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark

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

(see para. 101)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 (Case R 2387/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Opko Ireland Global Holdings.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

Top