Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/48 |

---

Action brought on 16 July 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International/OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)

(Case T-368/13)

2013/C 260/85

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lehning entreprise SARL (Sainte Barbe, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 29 April 2013 in Case R 571/2012-5 insofar as it allowed registration of the mark ANGIPAX in respect of pharmaceutical and veterinarian products and preparations for health and medical care; fungicides; dietetic substances adapted for medical use; disinfectants; surgical dressings and materials for dressing, materials for stopping teeth, preparations for destroying vermin; food for babies; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or — in the event that the other party before the Boards of Appeal intervenes on the side of the defendant — that they be borne jointly by the defendant and the intervener. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANGIPAX’ for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8 952 401

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘ANTISTAX’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 498 343 for goods in classes 3, 5, 28 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

[Top](#document1)