CELEX: 62016TN0803
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-803/16: Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)

23.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 22/46
            
         Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)
   (Case T-803/16)
   (2017/C 022/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, S. Wickenden, Barristers, R. Jacob, E. Morris, Solicitors,)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland)
   
      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours light brown/coffee and white containing the word element ‘SALMEX’ — EU trade mark No 9 849 191
   
      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 2108/2015-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUIPO and Other Party to bear their own costs and pay those costs of the Applicant for Annulment at every stage of the opposition and appeal process, including the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in law in reaching a decision contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that, first, it incorrectly held that the Cancellation Applicant’s genuine use of the French mark was not an acceptable form of use under Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and, second, it incorrectly held that Cancellation Applicant’s genuine use of the French mark was not use of the French mark in relation to the goods ‘inhalers’.