CELEX: 62011TN0300
Language: en
Date: 2011-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-300/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)

13.8.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 238/27
            
         Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
   (Case T-300/11)
   2011/C 238/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Otto GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Schäuble and S. Müller, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nalsani, SA (Bogota, Colombia)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2011 in Case R 1291/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nalsani, SA
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 — application No 6 212 451
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative mark ‘OTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The Board of Appeal focused on the wrong factors in assessing the visual similarity of the signs.