This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0412
Case T-412/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)
Case T-412/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)
Case T-412/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)
OJ C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 55–56
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
22.11.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 301/55 |
Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)
(Case T-412/08)
(2008/C 301/92)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Seattle, United States) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 1605/2007-2; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUBION’ for goods and services in classes 5 and 42
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 72 884 of the word mark ‘BION’ registered for various goods; Community trade mark registration No 3 282 936 of the figurative mark ‘TriBion Harmonis’ registered for various goods
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for the goods in class 5 and rejected it for the remaining services in class 42
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal (i) failed to asses the similarity of the trade marks by taking into account the overall impression of the earlier trade mark, and (ii) failed to take into account the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular the low similarity of the goods when assessing the likelihood of confusion.