ext/celex/62025TJ0307

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

3 June 2026 ( * )

( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Acta Endocrinologica (Buc) – Earlier EU word mark ACTA ENDOCRINOLOGICA (BUC), The International Journal of Romanian Society of Endocrinology / Registered in 1938 New series – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods and services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 )

In Case T‑307/25,

Societatea Română de Endocrinologie, established in Bucharest (Romania), represented by M.-C. Baicu, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by M. Eberl, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

Acta Endocrinologica, established in Bucharest, represented by O. Anghel, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of S. Kingston, President, A. Marcoulli and J. Hettne (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Societatea Română de Endocrinologie, seeks, in essence, the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 March 2025 (Case R 1651/2024-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

2 On 14 March 2023, the intervener, Acta Endocrinologica, filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with EUIPO in respect of the following figurative sign:

3 The mark applied for covers, inter alia, services in Classes 39 and 44 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:

– Class 39: ‘Delivery of magazines; delivery, despatching and distribution of newspapers and magazines’;

– Class 44: ‘Compilation of medical reports; issuing of medical reports; preparation of reports relating to medical matters; preparation of reports relating to health care matters’.

4 On 19 May 2023, the applicant filed a notice of opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of, inter alia, the services referred to in paragraph 3 above.

5 The opposition was based on the earlier EU word mark ACTA ENDOCRINOLOGICA (BUC), The international Journal of Romanian Society of Endocrinology / Registered in 1938 New series.

6 That mark covers goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:

– Class 16: ‘Publications, printed matter, magazines, photographs, albums, almanacs, books, handbooks’;

– Class 35: ‘Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’;

– Class 41: ‘Online publications; organisation of events, organisation of symposiums, seminars, conferences, congresses and colloquiums; training’.

7 The ground relied on in support of the opposition was that set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

8 On 8 August 2024, the Opposition Division, inter alia, rejected the opposition as regards the services referred to in paragraph 3 above.

9 On 16 August 2024, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Opposition Division in so far as it rejected the opposition as regards the services referred to in paragraph 3 above.

10 In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal stated that, as the goods and services at issue are not similar, one of the conditions necessary for the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 for a finding of a likelihood of confusion was not satisfied. Therefore, the Board of Appeal concluded that the opposition and the appeal had to be rejected on that ground alone.

Procedure and forms of order sought

11 The applicant claims, in essence, that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision;

– uphold its appeal before the Board of Appeal.

12 EUIPO contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that a hearing is held.

13 The intervener contends, in essence, that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

14 By measure of organisation of procedure of 8 December 2025, adopted pursuant to Article 89(3)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the General Court invited the parties to submit their observations regarding the reasoning in the contested decision. The parties complied with that request within the prescribed period.

Law

Preliminary observations

15 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 provides that, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for must not be registered if, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected. The likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.

16 For the purpose of applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, a likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the marks at issue are identical or similar and that the goods or services which they cover are identical or similar. Those conditions are cumulative (see judgment of 22 January 2009, Commercy v OHIM – easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel) , T‑316/07, EU:T:2009:14, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).

17 In assessing the similarity of the goods or services at issue, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services should be taken into account. Those factors include, in particular, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. Other factors may also be taken into account such as the distribution channels of the goods concerned (see judgment of 14 May 2013, Sanco v OHIM – Marsalman (Representation of a chicken) , T‑249/11, EU:T:2013:238, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

18 Complementary goods or services are those between which there is a close connection, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other in such a way that consumers may think that the same undertaking is responsible for manufacturing those goods or for providing those services. By definition, goods or services intended for different publics cannot be complementary (see judgment of 22 January 2009, easyHotel , T‑316/07, EU:T:2009:14, paragraphs 57 and 58 and the case-law cited).

19 In addition, it should be borne in mind that the principles applicable to the comparison of the goods also apply to the comparison between the goods and services. It is true that, by reason of their very nature, goods are generally different from services, but it nevertheless remains the case that they can be complementary, or that services may have the same purpose or use as goods and thus compete with those goods. It follows that, in certain circumstances, goods and services may be found to be similar (judgment of 27 October 2005, Éditions Albert René v OHIM – Orange (MOBILIX) , T‑336/03, EU:T:2005:379, paragraph 66).

20 It is in the light of the foregoing considerations that it is necessary to examine whether the Board of Appeal was right to find, in the contested decision, that there was no similarity between the goods and services at issue and that, consequently, the opposition had to be rejected in respect of the services in Classes 39 and 44 covered by the mark applied for.

Admissibility of evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court

21 EUIPO contends that the documents which make up Annex A.8 to the application, which reproduce an extract of the applicant’s website, were not adduced during the proceedings before EUIPO and are therefore inadmissible.

22 The purpose of actions before the Court under Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 is to review the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal. Pursuant to Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001, that review must be carried out in the light of the factual and legal context of the dispute as it was brought before the Board of Appeal (see judgment of 1 February 2005, SPAG v OHIM – Dann and Backer (HOOLIGAN) , T‑57/03, EU:T:2005:29, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).

23 Therefore, it is not the Court’s function to review the facts in the light of documents adduced for the first time before it. To allow the examination of such evidence would be contrary to Article 188 of the Rules of Procedure, according to which the parties’ pleadings may not change the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. Accordingly, the evidence submitted for the first time before the Court must be declared inadmissible and there is no need to examine it (see judgment of 14 May 2009, Fiorucci v OHIM – Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI) , T‑165/06, EU:T:2009:157, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

24 In that regard, it must be held that, as Annex A.8 to the application was not adduced during the proceedings before EUIPO, it must be declared inadmissible.

Comparison of the goods and services at issue

25 In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. It submits, in essence, that, contrary to the Board of Appeal’s finding, the goods and services which fall, on the one hand, in respect of the mark applied for, within Classes 39 and 44 and, on the other hand, in respect of the earlier mark, within Class 16, are similar and that there is, in the present case, a likelihood of confusion as to the commercial origin of those goods and services.

26 EUIPO and the intervener contest the applicant’s arguments.

In respect of the services in Class 39 covered by the mark applied for

27 In paragraph 31 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that the usual commercial origin, the nature, the method of use and the intended purpose of delivery services in Class 39 and printed matter in Class 16 differ from one another. In particular, the Board of Appeal stated that the nature of delivery services consists in ensuring the transport of goods from one place to another, whereas the nature of the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark is to provide specific information in printed form. In addition, the Board of Appeal noted in that paragraph that delivery services are ensured by specialist delivery companies whose business is not the manufacture or the sale of the goods concerned and that, by contrast, the goods at issue in Class 16 are usually produced by printing houses and sold in bookshops. In that regard, the Board of Appeal emphasised that, even though nowadays all goods can be purchased at a distance and delivered, the relevant consumer knows that the service whereby goods are delivered is the responsibility of a company other than the seller of those goods.

28 Furthermore, in paragraph 39 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal concluded that the nature and the intended purpose of the goods and services at issue are different, that they do not target the same public, that the relevant consumers would not expect those goods and services to be provided by the same companies, and that they are neither in competition with each other nor complementary.

29 The applicant raises, in essence, three complaints in respect of that conclusion.

30 In the first place, the applicant submits that the services in Class 39 covered by the mark applied for must be understood as referring only to the delivery and distribution of the magazine ACTA ENDOCRINOLOGICA (BUC), The International Journal of Romanian Society of Endocrinology / Registered in 1938 , published by the applicant, in so far as, in accordance with its corporate object, the intervener cannot carry out activities other than those in the field of endocrinology and, consequently, cannot deliver or distribute any other publication.

31 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as was noted by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 30 of the contested decision, in order to assess the similarity between the goods and services at issue, the goods and services protected by the marks at issue must be taken into account, and not the goods and services actually marketed subject to those marks (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 March 2007, Saint-Gobain Pam v OHIM – Propamsa (PAM PLUVIAL) , T‑364/05, EU:T:2007:96, paragraph 89, and of 16 June 2010, Kureha v OHIM – Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN) , T‑487/08, not published, EU:T:2010:237, paragraph 71).

32 In the present case, the services in Class 39 covered by the mark applied for are entitled ‘delivery of magazines; delivery, despatching and distribution of newspapers and magazines’, without specifying the field or fields covered by the publications being delivered or distributed. The applicant’s argument that, in practice, those services are limited to the delivery of the magazine Acta Endocrinologica (BUC), The International Journal of Romanian Society of Endocrinology / Registered in 1938 must therefore be rejected.

33 Similarly, the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark consist of ‘publications, printed matter, magazines, photographs, albums, almanacs, books, handbooks’ and, consequently, cover all kinds of publications and not only those concerning the medical field or the field of endocrinology.

34 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal was entitled to undertake a comparison of the goods and services at issue taking into account the fact that the publications to which the goods in Class 16 and the services in Class 39 refer were not limited to those concerning the medical field or the field of endocrinology.

35 In the second place, the applicant notes that, despite the existence of close professional connections between the two entities, the intervener filed the application for registration of the mark applied for without the applicant’s consent.

36 In that regard, it must be stated that, as was noted by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 40 of the contested decision, and as has been noted by EUIPO in its written pleadings, such an argument is irrelevant in the context of the relative ground based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

37 In the third place, the applicant argues that the goods in Class 16 and the services in Class 39 are connected, and that that they have, inter alia, the same nature, the same intended purpose and the same distribution channels and are also aimed at the same public, namely a public of doctors specialising in the field of endocrinology.

38 Furthermore, in its reply to the question put by the General Court by measure of organisation of procedure of 8 December 2025, the applicant argues that those goods and services are complementary.

39 It should be stated, first, that the applicant’s argument that the goods and services at issue are aimed at the same public is based on the premiss that those goods and services are linked to the medical field, and, more specifically, to the field of endocrinology. However, as is apparent from paragraphs 32 to 34 above, that premiss is incorrect, in so far as the goods and services at issue mention publications in general, and not specialist publications in those fields.

40 Moreover, even if it is assumed that the goods and services at issue are aimed at the same public, that fact cannot, in itself, suffice to establish the existence of a similarity between those goods and those services, given that goods and services which are aimed at the same consumers are not necessarily identical or similar (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 June 2023, Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN) , T‑543/22, not published, EU:T:2023:320, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

41 Second, it must be pointed out that the applicant has not put forward any specific and substantiated arguments capable of calling into question the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that there was no similarity between the services and goods at issue as regards their nature, their intended purpose or their distribution channels. In any event, the Board of Appeal correctly found, in paragraph 31 of the contested decision, that the nature of the delivery services in Class 39 covered by the mark applied for consists in the transporting of publications from one place to another, whereas the nature of the publications in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark consists in providing specific information in printed form. Furthermore, as regards the usual commercial origin of the goods and services at issue, the Board of Appeal emphasised, without being contradicted by the applicant, that the delivery services are ensured by specialist delivery companies, whose business is neither the manufacture nor the sale of the published goods concerned, which are usually produced by printing houses and sold in bookshops.

42 Third, the applicant has not provided evidence to show that the goods and services at issue are complementary within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 18 above. Although the applicant stated that it has economic and professional connections with the intervener, and that the publications covered by the earlier mark and the delivery services covered by the mark applied for are aimed at the same public, it must be held that such links, even if established, are not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a close connection between the goods and services at issue, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other. It should be added, in that regard, that the applicant has not put forward any specific argument capable of calling into question the assessment of the Board of Appeal, in paragraph 31 of the contested decision, that the relevant public knows that the delivery services are the responsibility of a company other than the one selling the printed matter. As is stated, in essence, in the contested decision, while it is true that, nowadays, all goods can be purchased at a distance, consumers would not think that the responsibility for the manufacture of the printed matter in question, on the one hand, and the provision of the delivery services in question, on the other, lies with the same company.

43 In those circumstances, it must be held that the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in finding that the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark and the services in Class 39 covered by the mark applied for are not similar.

In respect of the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for

44 In paragraphs 35 and 36 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted, first, on the one hand, that the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for mainly concern the field of healthcare, that is to say, they concern the preparation and the compilation of medical reports, and that those services are provided by health professionals (mainly doctors). On the other hand, as regards the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark, the Board of Appeal emphasised that, according to the description in the trade mark registration, those goods do not focus specifically on the medical field and therefore must be analysed generally rather than in the context of any specific field.

45 Second, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the mere fact that services in Class 44 may also include the publication of medical reports does not make them indispensable or important for the use and provision of goods in Class 16, or vice versa. Furthermore, those services are very specific and are aimed only at professionals in the field of medicine, not the general public, unlike the goods at issue in Class 16.

46 Third, in paragraph 38 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal stated that, for the reasons set out in paragraph 31 of that decision, the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark also differ, in terms of their nature and providers, from the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for, which can be offered only by doctors. The Board of Appeal therefore concluded that those goods and those services are not similar.

47 Furthermore, the Board of Appeal’s overall conclusion, in paragraph 39 of the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 28 above, also concerns the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for.

48 The applicant submits that the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for and the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark are aimed at the same public of specialist medical doctors. As regards those goods, it is understood that they are linked to the medical field on account of the name of the earlier mark.

49 In that regard, as has already been noted in paragraph 33 above, the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark cover all kinds of publications and are not limited to publications concerning the medical field. It follows that the applicant’s assertion that those goods are aimed only at a limited public consisting of specialist doctors and not generally at the public at large, as the Board of Appeal found in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, is based on an incorrect premiss.

50 In any event, and as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 40 above, the fact that the services at issue in Class 44 and the goods at issue in Class 16 may target the same professional public specialising in the medical field and, in the present case, the field of endocrinology, cannot be sufficient to call into question the conclusion of the Board of Appeal that those goods and services are different.

51 Furthermore, the applicant does not in any way contest the conclusions reached by the Board of Appeal, in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the contested decision, as regards the nature, the intended purpose and the commercial origin of the goods and services at issue in so far as the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark also differ, in terms of their nature and providers, from the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for, which, in general, can be offered only by doctors. The applicant does not set out any specific argument contesting the Board of Appeal’s assessment, in paragraphs 37 and 39 of its decision, that those goods and those services are not indispensable or important for each other’s use, or the conclusion that they are neither in competition with one another nor complementary.

52 In those circumstances, the applicant’s complaint is not capable of calling into question the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that the services in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for and the goods in Class 16 covered by the earlier mark are not similar.

The likelihood of association and confusion

53 The applicant argues that, in view of the identity of the central elements of the marks at issue and the fact that the proprietors of those marks are active in a shared professional field, there is a likelihood of association and, therefore, of confusion on the part of the relevant public.

54 In that regard, when it is established that there is no similarity between the goods and services covered by the signs at issue, a likelihood of confusion between those signs may be excluded, without there being any need to carry out a global assessment, taking into account all relevant factors, of the perception the relevant public has of the signs and of the goods or services at issue (judgments of 14 May 2013, Representation of a chicken , T‑249/11, EU:T:2013:238, paragraph 19, and of 14 June 2018, Emcur v EUIPO – Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE) , T‑165/17, not published, EU:T:2018:346, paragraph 27).

55 Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct to conclude, in paragraph 41 of the contested decision, without carrying out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, that, as the goods and services at issue were not similar, the opposition had to be rejected in respect of the services in Classes 39 and 44 covered by the mark applied for.

56 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, given that the single plea in law relied on by the applicant in support of the form of order sought by it cannot be upheld, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

57 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

58 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the intervener, in accordance with the form of order sought by the intervener. By contrast, since EUIPO has applied for the applicant to be ordered to pay the costs only in the event that a hearing is held, EUIPO must, in the absence of a hearing, be ordered to bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Societatea Română de Endocrinologie to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Acta Endocrinologica;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

Kingston | Marcoulli | Hettne

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 June 2026.

V. Di Bucci | M. van der Woude

Registrar | President

* Language of the case: English.