This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/129/34
Case T-106/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)
Case T-106/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)
Case T-106/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)
SL C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.6.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 129/19 |
Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)
(Case T-106/07)
(2007/C 129/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Alcon, Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte (Hennigsdorf, Germany)
Form of order sought
— |
The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 February 2007 in Case R 660/2006-2 Alcon, Inc. v. OHIM (BioVisc) be annulled insofar as it dismissed the opposition of Alcon, Inc. against CTM application 3 651 809 ‘BioVisc’; |
— |
the Office for Harmonisation be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BioVisc ’for goods in class 5 — application No 3 651 809
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The Community and international word marks ‘PROVISC ’and ‘DUOVISC ’for goods in class 5
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety
Pleas in law: The trade marks in question are confusingly similar and the goods applied for are identical to those covered by the opposition trade marks.