Choose the experimental features you want to try

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)

    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.


    Top