CELEX: 62011TN0561
Language: en
Date: 2011-10-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-561/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)

7.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/22
            
         Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)
   (Case T-561/11)
   2012/C 6/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer Consumer Care AG (Basel, Switzerland)
   
      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 21 July 2011 in case R 1953/2010-1, and dismiss the opposition; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the opponent to bear the costs and fees of both the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALEVIAN DUO’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6303201
   
      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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 786863 of the word mark ‘ALEVE’, for goods in class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.