CELEX: C2007/117/43
Language: en
Date: 2007-05-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-87/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)

26.5.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 117/27
            
         Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)
   (Case T-87/07)
   (2007/C 117/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Scil Proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant dated 23 January 2006, and the decision-corrigendum of the Second Board of Appeal of 31 January 2007, Case R 10/2006-2 be annulled as far as the opposition is dismissed with respect to the goods ‘extracts of medical plants for use in the … cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indena SpA
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘affilene ’for goods in class 1 — application No 2 751 931
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘AFFILIN ’for goods in classes 1 and 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld partially
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since the trade marks in question are confusingly similar also with regard to the goods for which the registration was allowed to proceed by the Board of Appeal.