Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62009TJ0160

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011.
Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OFTAL CUSI - Earlier Community word mark Ophtal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-160/09.

European Court Reports 2011 II-00233*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2011:379





Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 – Winzer Pharma v OHIM – Alcon (OFTAL CUSI)

(Case T-160/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark OFTAL CUSI – Earlier Community word mark Ophtal – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1.                     Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 73, first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 – Scope identical to that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, first sentence) (see para. 34)

2.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 96, 98)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2009 (Case R 1471/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dimisses the action;

2.

Orders Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Alcon Inc.

Top