CELEX: 62015TN0106
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-106/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

13.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 228/16
            
         Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-106/15)
   (2015/C 228/19)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 in Case R 2387/2014-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original 2009 Board of Appeal decision was also a member of the Board that took the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before OHIM at the first hearing of the opposition;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.