This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0076
Case T-76/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
Case T-76/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
Case T-76/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
OJ C 102, 1.5.2009, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
1.5.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 102/27 |
Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
(Case T-76/09)
2009/C 102/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg (Lahn), Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (Alfafar (Valencia), Spain)
Form of order sought
— |
Revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2008 in case R 852/2008-2; and |
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI”, for goods and services in classes 5, 35 and 39 — application No 4 841 136
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 4 304 622 of the trade mark “mundi pharma” for goods and services in classes 5 and 44
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was no similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the trade marks in question