Action brought on 18 February 2011 - Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM - Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)

(Case T-97/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH (Schlüchtern, Germany) (represented by: M. Berghofer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi, SA (Madrid, 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 December 2010 in case R 500/2010-2;

Reject the opposition No B 1368580 in its entirety with costs;

Order the defendant to register Community trade mark application No 6475107.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "ROVI Pharmaceuticals", for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 - Community trade mark application No 6475107

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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 24810 of the figurative mark "ROVI", for goods in classes 3 and 5; Community trade mark registration No 4953915 of the figurative mark "ROVICM Rovi Contract Manufacturing", for goods and services in classes 5, 42 and 44; Spanish trade mark registration No 2509464 of the word mark "ROVIFARMA", for goods and services in classes 5, 39 and 44; Spanish trade mark registration No 1324942 of the word mark "ROVI", for goods in class 3; Spanish trade mark registration No 283403 of the word mark "ROVI", for goods in classes 1 and 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 137853 of the figurative mark "ROVI", for goods in class 3

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) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion as it has incorrectly appreciated the individual factors relevant to the global assessment, and (ii) omitted to perform the global assessment of the concerned marks.

____________