EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0268
Case C-268/12 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2012 by Cadila Healthcare Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08: Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Case C-268/12 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2012 by Cadila Healthcare Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08: Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Case C-268/12 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2012 by Cadila Healthcare Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08: Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.8.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 258/10 |
Appeal brought on 30 May 2012 by Cadila Healthcare Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08: Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-268/12 P)
2012/C 258/17
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG
Form of order sought
The appellant seeks the following Order:
|
— |
The judgment of the General Court in case T-288/08 dated 15 March 2012 shall be annulled. |
|
— |
The Office and intervener shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the contested judgment shall be annulled on the following grounds:
|
|
The General Court breached Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure in that it should have ruled that the proceedings had become devoid of purpose in light of the fact that by the date of the judgment the earlier mark had not been renewed and further that the additional six months grace period under Article 47(3) CTMR (1) had expired. |
|
|
On the question of phonetic similarity, the General Court distorted the evidence and incorrectly assessed the facts, and its decision contains a substantive inaccuracy in the findings attributable to the documents submitted to it. |
|
|
The General Court failed to take into account of the involvement of professionals in the sale of pharmaceutical products. |
|
|
On the question of visual similarity, the General court misapplied its own case law to the effect that the beginnings of marks are generally considered to be the most important and that in marks which are relatively short such as those in this case, the central elements are as important as the elements at the beginning and end of the sign. |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 78, p. 1