Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/75 |

---

Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)

(Case T -327/06)

(2006/C 326/154)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: H. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Avensa AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2006 (Case R 668/2005-2); |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to dismiss opposition No B 575 524 brought by the opponent; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to make a fresh decision on opposition No B 575 524 brought by the opponent in the light of the Court's opinion. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PNEUMO UPDATE’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41 (Application No 2 462 049).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Avensa AG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘Pneumo’ for goods in Class 5, the opposition being brought only against the registration in Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: The contested decision is not reasoned in a comprehensible manner and it infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94[(1)](#ntr1-C_2006326EN.01007502-E0001), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. In addition, the applicant claims that the opposing mark is not in use.

---

[Top](#document1)