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 62018TN0279

Case T-279/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806150801955062018/C 231/532792018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430414221

Case T-279/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

Top

C2312018EN4110120180430EN0053411422

Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

(Case T-279/18)

2018/C 231/53Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Wiltshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AxiCorp GmbH (Friedrichsdorf/Ts, Germany)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark AXICORP ALLIANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 072 913

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 1473/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

in the alternative, the contested decision of the Fifth Board be altered to state that the opposition should be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the opposition pursuant to Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in addition to reconsidering the opposition pursuant to Article 8(4);

order EUIPO to pay to the Applicant, the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board. In the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then the Defendant and Intervener jointly and severally pay to the Applicant, the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board.

Pleas in law

Infringement of article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

The Board wrongly constructed the specifications of the earlier registered marks and, as a consequence, it held that the evidence of use that had been adduced did not show genuine use for the goods included within those specifications.

Top