Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010TA0569

    Case T-569/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility)

    OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    24.11.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 366/32


    Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)

    (Case T-569/10) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for alteration - Admissibility)

    2012/C 366/62

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Bimbo SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panrico SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

    Re:

    ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;

    3.

    Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs.


    (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


    Top