EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010CB0532

Case C-532/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Merkur)

OJ C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.10.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/14


Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-532/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Merkur)

2011/C 311/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-106/09 adp Gauselmann v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘Merkur’ for goods in Classes 6, 9, 28, 35, 37, 41 and 42 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 12 January 2009 in Case R 1266/2007-1 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision, which rejected the opposition brought by the appellant against the registration of the figurative mark ‘Archer Maclean’s Mercury’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16 and 28 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment

Operative part of the order

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2.

adp Gauselmann GmbH shall pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


Top