This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0553
Case T-553/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (FARMASUL)
Case T-553/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (FARMASUL)
Case T-553/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (FARMASUL)
SL C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 53–53
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 29/11/2010
- Author:
- Opći sud
- Form:
- Pravosudna informacija
- Authentic language:
- španjolski
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
29.1.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 30/53 |
Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (FARMASUL)
(Case T-553/10)
()
2011/C 30/94
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Biodes S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manasul Internacional S.L. (Ponferrada, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2010 in Case R 1034/2009-1, and |
|
— |
order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘FARMASUL’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manasul Internacional S.L.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks ‘MANASUL’ and ‘MANASUL ORO’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected and mark applied for granted.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark applied for refused.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since there is no similarity between the marks at issue, that the opponent has forgotten to examine the second licence agreement which amended the first licence agreement, and that the opposing mark’s alleged reputation is nonexistent.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
