ECLI:EU:T:2012:535•Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012.#Bimbo, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).#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.#Case T‑569/10.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012.#Bimbo, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).#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.#Case T‑569/10.
ECLI:EU:T:2012:535Eu Chamb 07 TOct 10, 2012
Full text
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)
(Case T-569/10)
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
1. 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks BIMBO DOUGHNUTS and DOGHNUTS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 97-100)
2. 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52, 55, 69, 90, 96)
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)
Re:
| 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. |
Operative part
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. |
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.