Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007TA0402

    Case T-402/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ARCOL — Earlier Community word mark CAPOL — Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rights of the defence — Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.5.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 113/35


    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)

    (Case T-402/07) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ARCOL - Earlier Community word mark CAPOL - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rights of the defence - Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    2009/C 113/71

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Kaul GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2007 (Case R 782/2000-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Kaul GmbH to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


    Top