- 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-369/09: Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA v OHIM — Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto (PORTO ALEGRE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0369
62009TN0369
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
5.12.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 297/22
(Case T-369/09)
2009/C 297/32
Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto SA (Sabrosa, Portugal)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in Case R 1012/2008–1, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division which declared the Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE invalid; and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark PORTO ALEGRE, for goods in Class 33
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: earlier Portuguese word mark VISTA ALEGRE, for goods in Class 33
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE declared invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed
Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as the Board of Appeal misinterpreted that provision and, consequently, wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.