Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TA0506

    Case T-506/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    OJ C 156, 1.6.2013, p. 41–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.6.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 156/41


    Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

    (Case T-506/11) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    2013/C 156/75

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Abrar, then P. Lange, lawyers)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Heitmann, M. Petersenn, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


    Top