CELEX: 62015TA0238
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-238/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zimara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal — First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

6.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 374/27
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara)
   (Case T-238/15) (1)
   
   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zimara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal - First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/40)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the remainder of the action;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders each party to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.