CELEX: 62009TA0385
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-385/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT — Earlier national word mark LOFT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2.4.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 103/22
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)
   (Case T-385/09) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT - Earlier national word mark LOFT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 103/39
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Annco, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Freche et fils associés (Paris, France)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Freche et fils associés and Annco, Inc.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Declares that the remainder of the action is inadmissible;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.