CELEX: 62013TN0212
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-212/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)

22.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/12
            
         Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)
   (Case T-212/13)
   2013/C 178/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Madaus GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and A. Späth, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Overturn the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2013 (Case R 27/2012-1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the event that Indena S.p.A. joins in the appeal as an intervening party, order the intervening party to bear its own costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECHINAMID’ for goods in class 1 — Community trade mark application No 6 830 103
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Greek word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5
   
      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 Council Regulation No 207/2009.