Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/086/78

Case T-48/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM

OJ C 86, 8.4.2006, p. 40–40 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/40


Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM

(Case T-48/06)

(2006/C 86/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Astex Therareutics Limited (Cambridge, United Kingdom) [represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protec Health International Limited (Cirencester, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004 — 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part;

order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal) and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further, order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Astex Technology’ for goods in class 5 (pharmaceuticals)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Protec Health International Limited.

Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Astex’ for goods and services in classes 5 (insecticides for killing dust mites) and 24 (textiles etc.)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Refuses registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismisses the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94.


Top