Action brought on 17 February 2011 - MSE Pharmazeutika v OHIM - Merck Sharp & Dohme (SINAMIT)

(Case T-100/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MSE Pharmazeutika GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (New Jersey, USA)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2010 in case R 724/2010-1;

Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 March 2010, which upheld opposition No B 1441684.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "SINAMIT", for goods in classes 3, 5 and 32 - Community trade mark application No 951596

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: Austrian trade mark registration No 57446 of the word mark "SINEMET", for goods in class 5; Benelux trade mark registration No 320194 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR197302373 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Finish trade mark registration No 49091 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Greek trade mark registration No 34959 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Hungarian trade mark registration No 116223 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M18257 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 12963 of the word mark "SINEMET, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

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 wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, assuming a high similarity of the marks on the one side and an identity and similarity of the goods covered by the trademarks on the other side.

____________