Case T-483/04: Action brought on 8 December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pharmaceutical industry, trade-mark law

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/21

the applicants submit

In addition,
that, by merely stating,
without any further explanation, that the award of the UMTS
licences cannot be treated as a market transaction, the defen-
in breach of Article 230 of the Treaty, failed to state
dant,
proper reasons for its decision.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed
Articles 87 and 88 EC by not examining the measure at issue
by way of the formal review procedure laid down by those
provisions.

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

TDK Kabushiki Kaisha

Community and national word
and figurative marks TDK for
goods in Class 9 (apparatus for
recording etc.)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Registration denied

Action brought on 14 December 2004 by Aktieselskabet
af 21. November 2001 against the Office for Harmonisa-
tion in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Appeal dismissed

Article 8 paragraph 5 of Council
Regulation No 40/94 does not
apply in this case.

(Case T-477/04)

(2005/C 69/38)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

Action brought on 8 December 2004 by Armour Pharma-
ceutical Company against the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14
December 2004 by Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001,
established in Brande (Denmark), represented by C. Barrett
Christiansen, lawyer.

TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corporation), established in Tokyo
(Japan), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Decision R 364/2003-1 of 7 October 2004 of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
concerned:

Word mark TDK for goods in
class 25 (clothing, footwear, head-
gear) — application
number
1214675

(Case T-483/04)

(2005/C 69/39)

(Language in which the application was submitted: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8
December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company, estab-
lished in Bridgewater (United States), represented by Richard
Gilbey, lawyer.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was also a party to the
proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 7 September 2004 (Case R
295/2003-4) and confirm the decision of the Opposition
Division of 28 February 2003 by upholding the opposition
in its entirety;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 69/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V., established in Hoofd-
dorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Pharmaceuticals

Teva
Limited

Industries

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Community trade mark
concerned:

for
The word mark ‘GALZIN’
goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
preparations for the treatment of
Wilson's disease – Application No
1 606 102)

Proprietor of the mark
or
sign cited in the
opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

The national word mark ‘CALSYN’
for products in Class 5 (pharma-
ceutical and medical preparations,
calcium-based
more
preparations – French trade mark
No 1 226 303)

specifically

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition upheld

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division

Pleas in law relied on:

Misinterpretation of Article 43(2)
of Council Regulation No 40/94
given that all the products claimed
had not been taken into account
and there was no overall compar-
ison of the two trade marks. The
goods covered by the two marks
in conflict are similar.

— annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the

OHIM;

— allow the registration of the Community trade mark appli-

cation No 1 155 712;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article
the Court of First

the Rules of Procedure of

87(2) of
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
concerned:

The three dimensional mark of a
white and blue rectangular tablet
with an oval white centre for
goods in classes 1 and 3 (Chemical
products for industrial purposes;
bleaching preparations and other
substances for
-
application No 1 155 712

laundry use,...)

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the exam-

Rejection of the application

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of
Council Regulation No 40/94

Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser
N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser
N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-2/05)

(2005/C 69/40)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case T-3/05)

(2005/C 69/41)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4
January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V., established in Hoofd-
dorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.