This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0493
Case T-493/07: Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
Case T-493/07: Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
Case T-493/07: Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
OJ C 51, 23.2.2008, p. 59–59
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.2.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/59 |
Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
(Case T-493/07)
(2008/C 51/107)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: GlaxoSmithkline SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: G. Richard, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serono Genetics Institute SA (Evry, France)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 September 2007 in Case R 8/2007-1 and declare the request for invalidation brought by the applicant to be well founded; |
|
— |
the applicant invites the Board to annul all cost orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and to order the later to bear the costs of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in Class 5 — Application No 2 491 298
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in Class 5
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidation in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 52 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.