Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/18 |

---

Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/12)

(2012/C 138/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

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

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALPHAREN’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 4320297

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

[Top](#document1)