CELEX: C2007/082/72
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-256/04 P: Judgment of the Court of 13 February 2007 — Mundipharma v OHIM-Altana Pharma (RESPICUR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RESPICUR — Earlier national word mark RESPICORT — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)

14.4.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/33
            
         Judgment of the Court of 13 February 2007 — Mundipharma v OHIM-Altana Pharma (RESPICUR)
   (Case T-256/04 P) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RESPICUR - Earlier national word mark RESPICORT - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2007/C 82/72)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by B. Müller and subsequently by G. Schneider, Agents)
   
      Other the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (H. Becker, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R 1004/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings involving Munidpharma AG and Altana Pharma AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 April 2004 (Case R 1004/2002-2);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, except for those relating to the intervention;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders the applicant to bear its costs relating to the intervention;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.