- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-467/08: Action brought on 17 October 2008 — ISDIN v OHIM — Pfizer (ISDIN)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0467
62008TN0467
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
10.1.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 6/36
(Case T-467/08)
(2009/C 6/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom)
Form of order 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 July 2008 in case R 1031/2007-1; and
—Order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ISDIN’ for goods in classes 3 and 5 — application No 3 288 339
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: Irish trade mark registration No 64 939 of the word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 824978 of the word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
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 the Board of Appeal erred in its findings that the trade marks concerned are similar, that the goods in question were hardly similar and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.