Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62015TN0106

Case T-106/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

OJ C 228, 13.7.2015, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/16

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/15)

(2015/C 228/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 in Case R 2387/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original 2009 Board of Appeal decision was also a member of the Board that took the contested decision;

—

Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before OHIM at the first hearing of the opposition;

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
Top