CELEX: C2007/042/77
Language: en
Date: 2007-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-4/07: Action brought on 5 January 2007 — Sanofi-Aventis v OHIM — AstraZeneca (EXANTIN)

24.2.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 42/44
            
         Action brought on 5 January 2007 — Sanofi-Aventis v OHIM — AstraZeneca (EXANTIN)
   (Case T-4/07)
   (2007/C 42/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 10 October 2006, case R 1302/2005-1, and uphold the appellant's contention that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the marks in conflict;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to bear the costs of the appellant in the present instance.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: AstraZeneca AB
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EXANTIN’ for goods in class 5 — application No 2 694 115
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: The international and national word marks ‘ELOXATIN’ and ‘ELOXATINE’ for goods in class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal failed to identify the relevant public in its entirety, and erroneously established a hierarchy of attentiveness between the sections of the relevant public that it identified.
   Furthermore, the Board of Appeal failed to apply the appropriate criteria in comparing the goods and failed to compare the signs globally. Consequently the Board of Appeal erroneously held that there was no likelihood of confusion.