- 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-580/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Kindertraum — Earlier national word mark Kinder — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier trade mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TA0580
62010TA0580
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
30.6.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 194/19
(Case T-580/10)(1)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Kindertraum - Earlier national word mark Kinder - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier trade mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 194/31
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Harald Wohlfahrt (Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany) (represented initially by N. Scholz Recht, then by G. Hußlein-Stich, latterly by M. Loschelder, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Pohlmann, then D. Walicka, agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Harald Wohlfahrt to pay the costs.
OJ C 63, 26.2.2011