Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2004/201/45

Case T-202/04: Action brought on 27 May 2004 by Madaus Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

IO C 201, 7.8.2004, p. 22–22 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.8.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/22

Action brought on 27 May 2004 by Madaus Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-202/04)

(2004/C 201/45)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by Madaus Aktiengesellschaft, Köln, (Germany), represented by I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer.

The Optima Health Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

recognise that the OHIM made a judicial error when issuing the contested decision;

—

annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Optima Healthcare Ltd, changed to The Optimal Health Ltd.

Community trade mark sought:

The word mark ‘ECHINAID’ for goods in class 5 (vitamins, food supplements, herbal preparations, pharmaceutical and medical preparations) (CTM application No 1666239)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Madaus AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

The international trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5 (chemical pharmaceuticals)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal brought by Madaus

Pleas in law:

The applicant submits that the Board of Appeal erred in applying the concept of relevant territory and relevant public. The applicant also claims that the prefix Echina is not descriptive and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Top