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:2012:62•Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012.#Yorma's AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).#Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion.#Case C‑191/11 P.

Open source

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012.#Yorma's AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).#Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion.#Case C‑191/11 P.

ECLI:EU:C:2012:62Eu Chamb 08 CFeb 8, 2012

Open source

Full text

Subject of the case
Operative part

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case T‑213/09 Yorma’s v OHIM  — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) dismissing the application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 refusing registration of the figurative sign with the word element ‘yorma’s’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 35 and 42 and upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘NORMA’ — Likelihood of confusion of two marks — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks and services concerned — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Yorma’s AG 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.