CELEX: C2007/129/34
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-106/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)

9.6.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/19
            
         Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)
   (Case T-106/07)
   (2007/C 129/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Alcon, Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte (Hennigsdorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 February 2007 in Case R 660/2006-2 Alcon, Inc. v. OHIM (BioVisc) be annulled insofar as it dismissed the opposition of Alcon, Inc. against CTM application 3 651 809 ‘BioVisc’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Office for Harmonisation be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BioVisc ’for goods in class 5 — application No 3 651 809
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: The Community and international word marks ‘PROVISC ’and ‘DUOVISC ’for goods in class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety
   
      Pleas in law: The trade marks in question are confusingly similar and the goods applied for are identical to those covered by the opposition trade marks.