Action brought on 29 February 2012 - Cytochroma Development v OHIM - Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/12)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

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 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and

Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "ALPHAREN", for goods in class 5 - Community trade mark application No 4320297

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: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark "ALPHA D3", for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark "ALPHA D3", for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark "ALPHA D3", for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

____________