Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document C2007/056/58

Case T-368/06: Action brought on 8 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Sanorell Pharma (Immunocell)

IO C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 29–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/29

Action brought on 8 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Sanorell Pharma (Immunocell)

(Case T-368/06)

(2007/C 56/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanorell Pharma GmbH & Co.

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 October 2006;

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Immunocell’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 41 (Registration No 1 065 903).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sanorell Pharma GmbH & Co.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘IMMUNORELL’ for goods in Class 5 (Community trade mark No 808 014), the opposition being brought only against the registration in Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).

Top