CELEX: 62015TN0214
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-214/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)

22.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/40
            
         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)
   (Case T-214/15)
   (2015/C 205/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zymara’ — Application for registration No 9 982 745
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2015 in Case R 550/2014-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal has misinterpreted the goods which are ‘pharmaceutical preparations, namely preparations for the treatment of cancer’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal has incorrectly based its decision on spelling rules which are not existing;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal has ignored arguments put forward with respect to the comparison of signs and, therefore, incorrectly held that the signs are phonetically similar only to a low degree;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal has put too much wait on the word beginnings within the visual comparison.