CELEX: 62011TA0224
Language: en
Date: 2013-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-224/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BERG — Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

13.4.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 108/22
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)
   (Case T-224/11) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BERG - Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 108/58
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented initially by: J. Krenzel, then by T. Stein and A. Segler, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea, then by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anson's Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: O Löffel and P. Lange, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 1494/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.