CELEX: 62009TN0160
Language: en
Date: 2009-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-160/09: Action brought on 20 April 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM

18.7.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 167/13
            
         Action brought on 20 April 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM
   (Case T-160/09)
   2009/C 167/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dr. Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon Inc.
   
      Forms of orders sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2009 in case R 147/2007-1 and uphold the opposition No B 809899;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Grant an oral procedure;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM or, in the alternative, the intervener, to bear all the costs of the proceedings; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, remit the case to OHIM.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alcon Cusì SA, who later transferred its rights to Alcon Inc.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTAL CUSI’ of goods in class 5 (Registration No 3 679 181)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Opthal’ for goods in class 5 (Registration No 489 948)
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009), as there is a likelihood of confusion or at least a likelihood of association between the marks at issue.