CELEX: 62009TN0342
Language: en
Date: 2009-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-342/09: Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)

24.10.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/33
            
         Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)
   (Case T-342/09)
   2009/C 256/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: C.R. Bard, Inc. (Murray Hill, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, O. Bray, A. Hobson and G. Warren, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2009 in case R 1577/2007-5; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PERFIX”, for goods in class 10
   
      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: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10; International trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.