CELEX: 62008TN0159
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-159/08: Action brought on 2 May 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Bayer (LIVENSA)

5.7.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/40
            
         Action brought on 2 May 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Bayer (LIVENSA)
   (Case T-159/08)
   (2008/C 171/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2008 in case R 960/2007-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               reject the opposition No B 873 978 dated 3 May 2007;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings: and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings before OHIM.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIVENSA’ for goods in class 5 — application No 004 062 725
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: The Community trade mark ‘LYVELSA’ for goods in class 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the trade mark application in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the two trade marks subject to comparison.