CELEX: 62009TN0076
Language: en
Date: 2009-02-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-76/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)

1.5.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 102/27
            
         Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
   (Case T-76/09)
   2009/C 102/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg (Lahn), Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (Alfafar (Valencia), Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2008 in case R 852/2008-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI”, for goods and services in classes 5, 35 and 39 — application No 4 841 136
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 4 304 622 of the trade mark “mundi pharma” for goods and services in classes 5 and 44
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was no similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the trade marks in question