- 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-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0289
62009TN0289
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
10.10.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 244/7
(Case T-289/09)
2009/C 244/11
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 401/2008-4; and
—Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’, for services in class 42
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 mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.