- 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-149/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Investrónica, SA v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO — Earlier national figurative mark micro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TA0149
62012TA0149
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
22.2.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 52/34
(Case T-149/12)(<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO - Earlier national figurative mark micro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions)
2014/C 52/62
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Olympus Imaging Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: C. Opatz, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Olympus Imaging Corp.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4).
2.Allows the opposition with regard to the goods covered by Class 9 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Photographic apparatus and instruments, digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, and parts and accessories therefor as far as included in Class 9’.
3.Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.
4.Orders Olympus Imaging Corp. to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.