Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/30 |

---

Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)

(Case T-502/11)

2011/C 340/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |

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 figurative mark representing a device of crossing sickles, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5164561

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 94500834, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 620636, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 627401, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5

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 Articles 76 and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks was no longer raised in the appeal proceedings, and did not properly assess the likelihood of confusion.

---

[Top](#document1)