Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TA0357

    Case T-357/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Relative ground for refusal — Mark with a reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    IO C 38, 9.2.2013, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.2.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 38/20


    Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO)

    (Case T-357/11) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Relative ground for refusal - Mark with a reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    2013/C 38/34

    Language of the case: Spanish

    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: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV;

    2.

    Orders OHIM to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


    Top