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 62010TN0553

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)

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).

Top