In case T-454/15 , the General Court upheld the EUIPO's decision regarding the following opposition:

The BoA upheld the Opposition Division's decision.

Regarding the comparison of goods: the drinks covered by the mark applied for and the ‘dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’ covered by the earlier mark were different, the ‘dietary supplements for humans and animals’ and ‘vitamins’ in Class 5 covered by the mark applied for, on the one hand, and the ‘dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’ covered by the earlier mark, on the other hand, were at most highly similar, and that the ‘medicinal drinks’ were identical to the ‘dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’ covered by the earlier mark.

Moreover, the signs at issue are visually and phonetically similar to a low degree and are not conceptually similar. The earlier mark DYNAMIN is at most vaguely allusive to 'dynamic' because of its clear differences from the Spanish word ‘dinámico’. By contrast, in relation to the mark applied for, ithe term ‘dynamic’ ismore similar to the Spanish word ‘dinámico’ but that neither the word ‘life’ nor the figurative element evoked any concept for the general public in Spain.Taking into account the normal distinctive character of the earlier mark and the heightened level of attention of the relevant public for goods for medical use, there is no likelihood of confusion.

The General Court dismissed the appeal.