CELEX: C2007/042/46
Language: en
Date: 2007-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-374/06: Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)

24.2.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 42/26
            
         Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)
   (Case T-374/06)
   (2007/C 42/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dr. Grandel GmbH
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 October 2006 in so far as it refuses to allow the Community trade mark application in respect of the goods in Class 5 ‘food supplements not for medical purposes, mainly consisting of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and trace elements; dietetic substances not adapted for medical use, namely amino acids and trace elements; the aforesaid goods not for use as antiepileptics’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Epican’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (Application No 2 524 510)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dr. Grandel GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EPIGRAN’ originally registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 and now registered only for goods in Class 3 (Community trade mark No 560 292), albeit that the opposition was brought solely against the registration in Class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial refusal to register
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division
   
      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).