EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TJ0289
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011. # Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH - Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Genuine use of the earlier mark. # Case T-289/09.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011.
Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH - Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Genuine use of the earlier mark.
Case T-289/09.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011.
Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH - Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Genuine use of the earlier mark.
Case T-289/09.
European Court Reports 2011 II-00270*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2011:452
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Omnicare v OHIM – Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
(Case T-289/09)
Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH – Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the services – Genuine use of the earlier mark
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 95)
Re:
| ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 401/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc. |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Omnicare, Inc. to pay the costs. |