This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0300
Case T-300/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
Case T-300/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
Case T-300/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
OJ C 238, 13.8.2011, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
13.8.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 238/27 |
Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
(Case T-300/11)
2011/C 238/48
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Otto GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Schäuble and S. Müller, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nalsani, SA (Bogota, Colombia)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2011 in Case R 1291/2010-2; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nalsani, SA
Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 — application No 6 212 451
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative mark ‘OTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The Board of Appeal focused on the wrong factors in assessing the visual similarity of the signs.