- 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-277/11: Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0277
62011TN0277
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
13.8.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 238/19
(Case T-277/11)
2011/C 238/35
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Promotora Imperial, SA
Form of order sought
—Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 February 2011 in Case R 832/2010-1 so as to uphold the main appeal and annul opposition No B 1458571; order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings; uphold the decision as to the remainder;
—Order OHIM to pay the costs of this action.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘iHotel’ for services in Classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — application No 6912877.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promotora Imperial, SA
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘i-hotel’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue. The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal was incorrect in holding there to be similarity both between the goods and services concerned and between the trade marks at issue.