- 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-338/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MBP — Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TA0338
62009TA0338
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 336/15
(Case T-338/09) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MBP - Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)
2013/C 336/30
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: M Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Schäffner, then A. Pohlmann, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany); Wolf E. Sajda (Munich); Johannes Bohnenberger (Munich); and Volkmar Kruspig (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke, M. Jacob and J. Herrlinger, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1176/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger, Volkmar Kruspig and Müller-Boré & Partner Rechtsanwälte. Patentanwälte.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.