This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CO0357
Wohlfahrt v OHIM
Wohlfahrt v OHIM
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM
(Case C-357/12 P)
‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) — Word sign ‘Kindertraum’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder’
|
1. |
Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Scope — Calling into question the validity of the earlier opposed national mark — Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8) (see para. 46) |
|
2. |
Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 58) |
Re:
Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2012 in Case T-580/10 Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt — Registration of the word sign ‘Kindertraum’ for goods in Classes 16 and 28 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier word mark ‘Kinder’ — Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 42(2), and 75, first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Mr Harald Wohlfahrt is ordered to pay the costs. |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM
(Case C-357/12 P)
‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) — Word sign ‘Kindertraum’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder’
|
1. |
Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Scope — Calling into question the validity of the earlier opposed national mark — Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8) (see para. 46) |
|
2. |
Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 58) |
Re:
Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2012 in Case T-580/10 Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt — Registration of the word sign ‘Kindertraum’ for goods in Classes 16 and 28 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier word mark ‘Kinder’ — Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 42(2), and 75, first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Mr Harald Wohlfahrt is ordered to pay the costs. |