CELEX: 62011TA0372
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-372/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014  — Basic v OHIM — Repsol YPF (basic) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark basic — Earlier Community figurative mark BASIC — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the services — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

11.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 261/22
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Basic v OHIM — Repsol YPF (basic)
   (Case T-372/11) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark basic - Earlier Community figurative mark BASIC - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the services - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 261/44
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg and H. Bickel, 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, intervener before the General Court: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2011 (Case R 1440/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Repsol YPF SA and Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1)
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.