Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CO0669

    Mundipharma v OHIM

    Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma v OHIM

    (Case C‑669/13 P) ( 1 )

    ‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC — Refusal of registration’

    1. 

    Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 28, 33)

    2. 

    Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

    Operative part

    1. 

    The appeal is dismissed.

    2. 

    Mundipharma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.


    ( 1 ) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014

    Top

    Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma v OHIM

    (Case C‑669/13 P) ( 1 )

    ‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC — Refusal of registration’

    1. 

    Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 28, 33)

    2. 

    Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

    Operative part

    1. 

    The appeal is dismissed.

    2. 

    Mundipharma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.


    ( 1 )   OJ C 85, 22.3.2014

    Top