EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-575/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — 4care v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (Acumed)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0575

62008TN0575

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/43

(Case T-575/08)

(2009/C 55/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 4care AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: S. Redeker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barbera del Valles, Spain)

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 7 October 2008 in Case R 16636/2007-2 and reject the opposition entered by Laboratorios Diafarm, SA;

order the defendant and Laboratorios Diafarm, SA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Acumed’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 9 (application for registration No 4493136).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AQUAMED ACTIVE’ (trade mark No 2506452) for goods in Class 5 and Community word mark ‘AQUAMED ACTIVE’ (No 2882272) for goods in Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia