EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/326/154
Case T -327/06: Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)
Case T -327/06: Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)
Case T -327/06: Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)
ĠU C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 75–76
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/75 |
Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)
(Case T -327/06)
(2006/C 326/154)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: H. Becker, 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: Avensa AG (Zug, Switzerland)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2006 (Case R 668/2005-2); |
|
— |
order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to dismiss opposition No B 575 524 brought by the opponent; |
|
— |
in the alternative, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to make a fresh decision on opposition No B 575 524 brought by the opponent in the light of the Court's opinion. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PNEUMO UPDATE’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41 (Application No 2 462 049).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Avensa AG.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘Pneumo’ for goods in Class 5, the opposition being brought only against the registration in Class 5.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: The contested decision is not reasoned in a comprehensible manner and it infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. In addition, the applicant claims that the opposing mark is not in use.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).