- 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-191/11: Action brought on 25 March 2011 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0191
62011TN0191
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
28.5.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 160/23
(Case T-191/11)
2011/C 160/37
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA (Sant’Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: P. Kather, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Miura Martínez (Sevilla, Spain) and Antonio José Miura Martínez (Sevilla, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2011 in Case R 161/2010-4;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘Miura’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 14, 18, 25 and 28.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez
Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national figurative marks, containing the word element ‘MIURA’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 14, 24, 25 and 39, the national word mark ‘MIURA’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25, and the name ‘MIURA’ used in the course of trade for the breeding of bulls.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since the interveners had not shown the use of the marks cited in opposition, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the applicant was not able to state the relevant considerations of the decisions, since the evidence of the opposition was not served on it.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).