Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015TA0238

Case T-238/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zimara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal — First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

IO C 374, 6.11.2017, p. 27–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/27


Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara)

(Case T-238/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zimara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal - First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’;

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


Top