CELEX: 62012TA0411
Language: en
Date: 2013-06-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-411/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET — Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

3.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 225/78
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)
   (Case T-411/12) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET - Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/173
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders each party to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.