Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)
(Case T-534/13) 1
(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DONUT, DOGHNUTS, donuts and donuts cream — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of profit derived unduly from the distinctive character or reputation — Risk of detriment — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Panrico SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: HDN Development Corp. (Frankfort, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreňo, lawyers)Re:Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 623/2011-4), relating to invalidity proce
No 2
07/2009))Language of the case: SpanishPartiesApplicant: Panrico SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: HDN Development Corp. (Frankfort, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreňo, lawyers)Re:Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 623/2011-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Panrico SA and HDN Development Corp.Operative part of the judgmentThe Court:1. Dismisses the action.2. Orders Panrico SA to pay the costs.
____________1 OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.