CELEX: 62010TN0517
Language: en
Date: 2010-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-517/10: Action brought on 4 November 2010 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)

15.1.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 13/31
            
         Action brought on 4 November 2010 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)
   (Case T-517/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG (Pinneberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and R. Möller, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA (București, Romania)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1st September 2010 in case R 1332/2009-4; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HYPOCHOL’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5718069
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1171145 of the figurative mark ‘HITRECHOL’, for goods in class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks due to a lacking similarity between the signs.