CELEX: 62011TA0277
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-277/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iHotel — Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

21.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 217/21
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
   (Case T-277/11) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark iHotel - Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/45
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch and D. Hötte, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Promotora Imperial SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2011 (Case R 832/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Promotora Imperial SA and Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.