Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/41 |

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Omnicare, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09: Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

(Case C-588/11 P)

(2012/C 25/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Omnicare, Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant seeks an Order that the judgment under appeal be annulled. Further, the Appellant seeks an Order for its costs of this appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon a single plea in law, namely that the General Court wrongly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) № 207/2009 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2012025EN.01004101-E0001) (the ‘New Regulation’). This case involves an opposition brought by Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (the ‘Opponent’) based upon the Opponent's German trade mark registration № 394 01348 and an allegation of the existence of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) № 40/94 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2012025EN.01004101-E0002) (‘the Old Regulation’) (but which is identical to the pertinent parts of the New Regulation). As the earlier mark had been registered for more than five years before the Opposition was commenced, it was necessary for the Opponent to prove that the mark has been put to genuine use in order for it to be used as a basis for the Opposition.

It is submitted that the General Court wrongly held that the earlier trade mark upon which the Opponent relied had, as a matter of law, been put to genuine use. It is not disputed that the mark in question had actually been used in the course of trade by or with the consent of the Opponent in relation to the services for which it was registered. However, that use was in relation to the provision of services for which no charge was levied. Accordingly, as a matter of law, such use cannot be invoked to establish that the mark had been put to genuine use. This point has been the subject of some case law, which the Appellant submits (a) was mis-applied by the General Court, and (b) is inconsistent in any event. Accordingly, the matter of the legal consequences that ought to be drawn in such a factual scenario needs to be resolved by this Court.

---

---

[Top](#document1)