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 62016TN0803

Case T-803/16: Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.1.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/46


Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)

(Case T-803/16)

(2017/C 022/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, S. Wickenden, Barristers, R. Jacob, E. Morris, Solicitors,)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours light brown/coffee and white containing the word element ‘SALMEX’ — EU trade mark No 9 849 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 2108/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO and Other Party to bear their own costs and pay those costs of the Applicant for Annulment at every stage of the opposition and appeal process, including the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law

The Board of Appeal erred in law in reaching a decision contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that, first, it incorrectly held that the Cancellation Applicant’s genuine use of the French mark was not an acceptable form of use under Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and, second, it incorrectly held that Cancellation Applicant’s genuine use of the French mark was not use of the French mark in relation to the goods ‘inhalers’.


Top