- 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-62/13: Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0062
62013TN0062
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
23.3.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 86/27
(Case T-62/13)
2013/C 86/45
Language in which the application was lodged: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2012 in Case R 2089/2011-2;
—reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;
—order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘METABIOMAX’, for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261
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 in opposition: The Community word mark ‘BIOMAX’ which has been registered under No 2661858, for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division partly annulled.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009