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
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 77, 78)
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;
3.Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs.