Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/47 |

---

Action brought on 11 January 2006 — PORTELA & Ca, S.A. v OHIM

(Case T-10/06)

(2006/C 60/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: PORTELA & Ca, S.A. (S. Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by João M. Pimenta, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Torres Quadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 in Case R-897/2004-1 granting registration of Community trade mark No 1 400 183 for the following products:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | Class 5 — pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, preparations for destroying vermin; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | Class 42 — medical services, services related to pharmaceutical laboratories; research in the field of medicine and laboratories. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order OHIM to pay all the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: PORTELA & Ca, S.A.

Community trade mark concerned: Bial (application No 1400183)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Juan Torres Quadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark BIAL

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division upheld in its entirety

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that OHIM infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by interpreting it incorrectly and that the contested decision is vitiated by infringements of essential procedural requirements (the mark was not properly presented in the opposition, the applicant was not provided, within the period prescribed by law, with the relevant elements of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based and the decision on costs was incorrect).

---

[Top](#document1)