- 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-357/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0357
62010TN0357
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
23.10.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 288/56
(Case T-357/10)
()
(2010/C 288/104)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Nacional de Chocolates SA (Medellín, Colombia)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2010 in case R 696/2009-4; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CORONA’, for goods in class 30
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: Estonian trade mark registration No 20671 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Latvian trade mark registration No M36592 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 28143 of the word mark ‘KARŪNA’, for goods in class 30
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the opposition division and rejected the opposition
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks are not similar or identical.