# C_2016136EN.01004101.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/41

---

Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-88/16)

(2016/C 136/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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 EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

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

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 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 EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO 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 two members of the Board who took the original 2014 Board of Appeal decision (and the June 2015 Board of Appeal revocation decision) were also members of the Board that took the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that two members of the Board who took the original 2014 Board of Appeal decision (and the June 2015 Board of Appeal revocation decision) were also members of the Board that took the contested decision;

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

—

Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before EUIPO 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.

---