EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-414/11: Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma v OHIM — Gervais Danone (Active)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0414

62011TN0414

July 29, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/20

(Case T-414/11)

2011/C 298/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany) (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Levallois Perret, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2011 in Case R 683/2010-1;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Active’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32 — application No 3 423 316.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Compagnie Gervais Danone.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘ACTIVIA’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement (i) of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) and Rule 19(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal incorrectly assumed that the earlier mark has average distinctive character; (ii) of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue; and (iii) of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 as the parallel decisions of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office and of other national authorities, cited by the applicant, were not taken into account when the defendant took its decision.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia