The last week or so has produced a batch of six rulings by the Court of First Instance in appeals against decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). They are

* Case T- 106/07 Alcon v OHIM, *Acri.Tec (BioVisc), 10 September 2008: application to register BioVisc; earlier marks PROVISC and DUOVISC held insufficiently similar to give rise to a likelihood of confusion even in respect of identical goods.

* Case T-201/06 Gerson v OHIM (Filtre à peinture en partie de couleur jaune), 9 September 2008: three-dimensional paint filter with a yellow colouration near its tip held unregistrable for lack of distinctive character.

* Case T-243/06 Promat v OHIM - Puertas Proma (PROMAT), 10 September 2008: not available in English. Class 46 welcomes the assistance of any reader who would like to summarise this decision.

* T-Case T-300/06 Promat v OHIM - Puertas Proma (Promat), 10 September 2008: also not available in English. Class 46 welcomes the assistance of any reader who would like to summarise this decision.

* Case T-325/06 Boston Scientific v OHIM - Terumo (CAPIO), 10 September 2008. CAPIO held likely to cause confusion in opposition brought by owner of numerous registrations of CAPIOX (both marks being for goods in Class 10); lengthy discussion as to nature of proof of use of the opponent's earlier marks.

* Case T-48/06 Astex Therapeutics v OHIM - Protec Health International (astex TECHNOLOGY), 10 September 2008. Astex figurative mark held confusingly similar to earlier ASTEX Community trade mark, where both were aimed at, among others, goods in Class 5.

* Case T-96/06 Tsakiris-Mallas v OHIM - Late Editions (exé), 10 September 2008; not available in English. Class 46 welcomes the assistance of any reader who would like to summarise this decision.