Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/26 |

---

Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)

(Case T-374/06)

(2007/C 42/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dr. Grandel GmbH

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 October 2006 in so far as it refuses to allow the Community trade mark application in respect of the goods in Class 5 ‘food supplements not for medical purposes, mainly consisting of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and trace elements; dietetic substances not adapted for medical use, namely amino acids and trace elements; the aforesaid goods not for use as antiepileptics’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Epican’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (Application No 2 524 510)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dr. Grandel GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EPIGRAN’ originally registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 and now registered only for goods in Class 3 (Community trade mark No 560 292), albeit that the opposition was brought solely against the registration in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94[(1)](#ntr1-C_2007042EN.01002601-E0001) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.

---

[Top](#document1)