EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TJ0175
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 March 2023.#Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark BREZTRI – Earlier EU word marks ONBREZ, BREZILIZER and BREEZHALER – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks – Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625.#Case T-175/22.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 March 2023.
Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark BREZTRI – Earlier EU word marks ONBREZ, BREZILIZER and BREEZHALER – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks – Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-175/22.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 March 2023.
Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark BREZTRI – Earlier EU word marks ONBREZ, BREZILIZER and BREEZHALER – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks – Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-175/22.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2023:135
- Date of document:
- 15/03/2023
- Date lodged:
- 04/04/2022
- Author:
- General Court
- Country or organisation from which the request originates:
- Third countries
- Form:
- Judgment
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment - unfounded
- Applicant:
- Individual
- Defendant:
- EU institutions and bodies, European Union Intellectual Property Office
- Judge-Rapporteur:
- Kornezov
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Affected by case:
-
- Related judicial information 62022TA0175
- Instruments cited in case law:
-
- 12008E263: N 1
- 32017R1001: N 37
- 32017R1001-A60P1LA: N 5 11
- 32017R1001-A08P1LB: N 5 11 14 16
- 32017R1001-A08P5: N 74
- 32018R0625-A27P3LB: N 11 103
- 61997CJ0039-N17: N 88
- 62001TJ0162-N30: N 15
- 62001TJ0162-N31: N 15
- 62001TJ0162-N32: N 15
- 62001TJ0162-N33: N 15
- 62003CJ0353-N30: N 75
- 62003TJ0081-N74: N 88
- 62003TJ0153-N35: N 30
- 62003TJ0194-N123: N 97
- 62003TJ0194-N126: N 98
- 62003TJ0194-N127: N 99
- 62004TJ0256-N42: N 18
- 62005CJ0334-N35: N 26
- 62005CJ0334-N41: N 29 38
- 62006CJ0488-N49: N 76
- 62006CJ0488-N50: N 76
- 62006CJ0488-N51: N 76
- 62006TJ0242-N51: N 30
- 62007TJ0095-N29: N 91
- 62007TJ0109-N30: N 47
- 62007TJ0316-N42: N 16
- 62009TJ0331-N26: N 22
- 62011TJ0524-N31: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N32: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N33: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N34: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N35: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N36: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N37: N 51
- 62011TJ0524-N38: N 51
- 62014CJ0215-N65: N 77
- 62014CJ0215-N66: N 77
- 62014TJ0083-N37: N 37
- 62014TJ0227-N35: N 38
- 62016TJ0189-N48: N 47
- 62018TJ0268-N95: N 89
- 62018TJ0268-N96: N 89
- 62019TJ0349-N69: N 74
- 62019TJ0659-N84: N 66
- 62019TJ0817-N59: N 35
- 62020TJ0584-N29: N 47
- 62021TJ0125-N114: N 94
- Subject matter:
- Case law directory code:
-
