EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62006TO0373
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008. # Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law. # Case T-373/06.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008.
Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T-373/06.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008.
Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T-373/06.
Thuarascálacha na Cúirte Eorpaí 2008 II-00149*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2008:312
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008 – Rath v OHIM – Grandel (Epican Forte)
(Case T-373/06)
Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte – Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law
Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33, 65-66)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath. |
Information relating to the case
Applicant for the Community trade mark: |
Matthias Rath |
Community trade mark sought: |
Word mark Epican Forte for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 – Application No 2525251 |
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: |
Dr. Grandel GmbH |
Mark or sign cited in opposition: |
Word Mark EPIGRAN, initially registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5, currently also registered for goods in Class 3 (Community mark No 560292), the opposition being directed solely against registration in Class 5 |
Decision of the Opposition Division: |
Opposition upheld; partial rejection of the application for registration |
Decision of the Board of Appeal: |
Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law; |
2. |
Orders Matthias Rath to bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH. |