- 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-402/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ARCOL — Earlier Community word mark CAPOL — Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rights of the defence — Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TA0402
62007TA0402
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
16.5.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 113/35
(Case T-402/07)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ARCOL - Earlier Community word mark CAPOL - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rights of the defence - Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
2009/C 113/71
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Kaul GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2007 (Case R 782/2000-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Kaul GmbH to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.