Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TA0338

Case T-338/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MBP — Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)

OJ C 336, 16.11.2013, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 336, 16.11.2013, p. 14–14 (HR)

16.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/15


Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP)

(Case T-338/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MBP - Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)

2013/C 336/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: M Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Schäffner, then A. Pohlmann, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany); Wolf E. Sajda (Munich); Johannes Bohnenberger (Munich); and Volkmar Kruspig (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke, M. Jacob and J. Herrlinger, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1176/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger, Volkmar Kruspig and Müller-Boré & Partner Rechtsanwälte. Patentanwälte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


Top