Choose the experimental features you want to try

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)

    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


    Top