Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009TJ0344

Rettens dom (Anden Afdeling) af 27. juni 2012.
Hearst Communications, Inc. mod Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM).
EF-varemærker - indsigelsessag - ansøgning om EF-ordmærket COSMOBELLEZA - de ældre nationale og internationale ord- og figurmærker COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION og THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW - de ikke-registrerede mærker og handelsbetegnelserne COSMO og COSMOPOLITAN - relative registreringshindringer - ingen risiko for forveksling - manglende lighed mellem tegnene - artikel 8, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 207/2009.
Sag T-344/09.

Samling af Afgørelser 2012 -00000

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2012:324





Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2012 —
Hearst Communications v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA)

(Case T-344/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark COSMOBELLEZA — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION and THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW — Non-registered marks and trade names COSMO and COSMOPOLITAN — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the marks — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 98-104)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 770/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hearst Communications, Inc. and Vida Estética, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Hearst Communications, Inc. to pay the costs.

Top