- 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-276/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ — Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TA0276
62010TA0276
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 6/13
(Case T-276/10)(<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ - Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 6/22
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: El Coto de Rioja, SA (Oyón, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: María Álvarez Serrano (Gomariz Leiro, Spain)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between El Coto de Rioja, SA and Ms María Álvarez Serrano.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of the signs in question is incorrect;
2.Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.