Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TA0385

    Case T-385/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT — Earlier national word mark LOFT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    OJ C 103, 2.4.2011, p. 22–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.4.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 103/22


    Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)

    (Case T-385/09) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT - Earlier national word mark LOFT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    2011/C 103/39

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Annco, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Freche et fils associés (Paris, France)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Freche et fils associés and Annco, Inc.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1);

    2.

    Declares that the remainder of the action is inadmissible;

    3.

    Orders OHIM to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


    Top