Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010TA0500

Case T-500/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ — Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, 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)

7.1.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/15


Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)

(Case T-500/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ - Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dorma GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Doorsa, SL (Petrel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2010 (Case R 542/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Dorma GmbH & Co. KG and Puertas Doorsa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


Top