- 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-342/09: Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0342
62009TN0342
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
24.10.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 256/33
(Case T-342/09)
2009/C 256/60
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: C.R. Bard, Inc. (Murray Hill, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, O. Bray, A. Hobson and G. Warren, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2009 in case R 1577/2007-5; and
—Order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PERFIX”, for goods in class 10
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: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10; International trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.