EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-300/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0300

62011TN0300

June 10, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/27

(Case T-300/11)

2011/C 238/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Otto GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Schäuble and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nalsani, SA (Bogota, Colombia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2011 in Case R 1291/2010-2;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nalsani, SA

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 — application No 6 212 451

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative mark ‘OTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The Board of Appeal focused on the wrong factors in assessing the visual similarity of the signs.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia