- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-659/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0659
62014TN0659
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
3.11.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 388/23
(Case T-659/14)
2014/C 388/28
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 given in Case R 946/2013-4;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Office.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PORT CARLOTTE’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark No 5 4 21 474
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g), Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with article 8(4) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the cancellation request
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009