# C_2015228EN.01001601.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/16

---

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/15)

(2015/C 228/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 in Case R 2387/2014-5

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original 2009 Board of Appeal decision was also a member of the Board that took the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original 2009 Board of Appeal decision was also a member of the Board that took the contested decision;

| — | Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before OHIM at the first hearing of the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before OHIM at the first hearing of the opposition;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---