Omnilex Logo
Legal research
Legal research
Corpus
Corpus

Wondering how this text applies to your situation?

Free consultation, no commitment

Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.

Are you a lawyer?

Discover Omnilex, your workspace for faster legal research.

Already trusted by over 6,000 lawyers.

Try Omnilex
Settings
Settings
Court decisions

ECLI:EU:C:2011:187•Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011.#Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).#Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Earlier mark STABILAT - Figurative sign 'stabilator' - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity of the goods and services.#Case C-418/10 P.

Open source

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011.#Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).#Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Earlier mark STABILAT - Figurative sign 'stabilator' - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity of the goods and services.#Case C-418/10 P.

ECLI:EU:C:2011:187Eu Chamb 05 CMar 28, 2011

Open source

Full text

Subject of the case
Operative part

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM – Stabilator , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 – Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue – Infringement of the right to be heard before a court.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

Wondering how this text applies to your situation?

Free consultation, no commitment

Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.