CELEX: 62010TA0334
Language: en
Date: 2012-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-334/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Twist System — Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXTER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

25.8.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 258/18
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System)
   (Case T-334/10) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Twist System - Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXTER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/30
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, 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: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, O. Sude and M. Ring, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2010 (Joined Cases R 924/2009-1 and R 1013/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and Leifheit AG.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.