Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TA0213

    Case T-213/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2011 — Yorma's v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

    SL C 95, 26.3.2011, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.3.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 95/7


    Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2011 — Yorma's v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S)

    (Case T-213/09) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

    2011/C 95/11

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. von Welser, lawyer)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 1879/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    dismisses the action;

    2.

    orders Yorma’s AG to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


    Top