EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0357
Case T-357/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
Case T-357/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
Case T-357/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 56–57
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
23.10.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 288/56 |
Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
(Case T-357/10)
()
(2010/C 288/104)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Nacional de Chocolates SA (Medellín, Colombia)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2010 in case R 696/2009-4; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CORONA’, for goods in class 30
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: Estonian trade mark registration No 20671 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Latvian trade mark registration No M36592 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 28143 of the word mark ‘KARŪNA’, for goods in class 30
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the opposition division and rejected the opposition
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks are not similar or identical.