- 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-536/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0536
62012TN0536
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
9.2.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 38/25
(Case T-536/12)
2013/C 38/46
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Aroa Bodegas, SL (Zurukoain, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4;
—annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499);
—order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘aroa’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 276 297
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Muga, SL
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘aro’ for goods in Class 33
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part
Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009