This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0546
Case T-546/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)
Case T-546/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)
Case T-546/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)
OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 50–51
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.1.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 30/50 |
Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)
(Case T-546/10)
()
2011/C 30/90
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Nordmilch AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schneider, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2010 in Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4, in so far as it refuses Community trade mark application 002 851 384 for certain goods in Classes 5 and 29; |
|
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MILRAM’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30, 33, 33 and 43.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lactimilk, SA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘RAM’ for goods in Classes 29, and various national word marks ‘RAM’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection in part of the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, in so far as the opposition in respect of certain goods was rejected and refusal of registration for the goods in question.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The applicant also claims that the Board of Appeal did not take account, in respect of an opposing mark, that its protection had expired at the time of the decision of 15 September 2010.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).