CELEX: 62008TA0288
Language: en
Date: 2012-03-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-288/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS — Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

28.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 126/11
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS)
   (Case T-288/08) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS - Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 126/22
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, F. Potin, and A. Juaristi, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders Cadila Healthcare Ltd to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.