- 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-288/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS — Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TA0288
62008TA0288
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 126/11
(Case T-288/08)(1)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS - Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2012/C 126/22
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, F. Potin, and A. Juaristi, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;
2.Dismisses the action;
3.Orders Cadila Healthcare Ltd to pay the costs.
OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.