- 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-213/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2011 — Yorma's v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TA0213
62009TA0213
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
26.3.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 95/7
(Case T-213/09) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 95/11
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. von Welser, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 1879/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.dismisses the action;
2.orders Yorma’s AG to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.