This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0312
Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)
Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)
Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)
OJ C 270, 17.8.2015, p. 37–38
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)
Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)
(Case T-312/15)
2015/C 270/47Language in which the application was lodged: EnglishParties
Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom)
Details of the proceedings before OHIM
Applicant: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MITOCHRON’ — Application for registration No 11 200 078
Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2015 in Case R 507/2014-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
admit the complaint; |
|
— |
annul the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety the application filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
|
— |
order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Plea in law
|
— |
The trade marks involved in the dispute are not so similar as to be capable of being confused. |