EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/056/58
Case T-368/06: Action brought on 8 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Sanorell Pharma (Immunocell)
Case T-368/06: Action brought on 8 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Sanorell Pharma (Immunocell)
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).