Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/21 |

---

Action brought on 8 December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-483/04)

(2005/C 69/39)

Language in which the application was submitted: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company, established in Bridgewater (United States), represented by Richard Gilbey, lawyer.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4) and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 February 2003 by upholding the opposition in its entirety; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited |
| Community trade mark concerned: | The word mark ‘GALZIN’ for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of Wilson's disease – Application No 1 606 102) |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The applicant |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | The national word mark ‘CALSYN’ for products in Class 5 (pharmaceutical and medical preparations, more specifically calcium-based preparations – French trade mark No 1 226 303) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division |
| Pleas in law relied on: | Misinterpretation of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 given that all the products claimed had not been taken into account and there was no overall comparison of the two trade marks. The goods covered by the two marks in conflict are similar. |

---

[Top](#document1)