CELEX: 62008TN0467
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-467/08: Action brought on 17 October 2008 — ISDIN v OHIM — Pfizer (ISDIN)

10.1.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/36
            
         Action brought on 17 October 2008 — ISDIN v OHIM — Pfizer (ISDIN)
   (Case T-467/08)
   (2009/C 6/73)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2008 in case R 1031/2007-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ISDIN’ for goods in classes 3 and 5 — application No 3 288 339
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: Irish trade mark registration No 64 939 of the word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 824978 of the word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its findings that the trade marks concerned are similar, that the goods in question were hardly similar and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.