EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TJ0305
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012. # Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE - Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 # Case T-305/10.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012.
Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE - Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Case T-305/10.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012.
Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE - Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Case T-305/10.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2012:57
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012 —
Hartmann‑Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
(Case T‑305/10)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE — Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33‑35)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2010 (Case R 1217/2009‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Diptyque SAS and Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy. |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy to pay the costs. |