- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-569/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TA0569
62010TA0569
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
24.11.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 366/32
(Case T-569/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for alteration - Admissibility)
2012/C 366/62
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Bimbo SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panrico SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;
3.Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.