This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0289
Case T-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
Case T-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
Case T-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
OJ C 244, 10.10.2009, p. 7–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.10.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 244/7 |
Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
(Case T-289/09)
2009/C 244/11
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicants: 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.