- 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-534/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0534
62010TN0534
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
29.1.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 30/45
(Case T-534/10)
()
(2011/C 30/81)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Lefkosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)
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 20 September 2010 in Case R 794/2010-4;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Garmo AG
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HELLIM’ for goods in Class 29
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the collective word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29
Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the marks and goods at issue are similar and there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks, and infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the applicant should have been able to rely on having the opportunity to respond to the observations of the respondent in the appeal proceedings before OHIM
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).