EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-474/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0474

62011TN0474

September 6, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/24

(Case T-474/11)

2011/C 319/51

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Santiago, Chile)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2011 in Case R 637/2010-2;

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs;

In the alternative, stay the proceedings until delivery of a legally binding decision in the invalidity proceedings pending before OHIM concerning filing reference 000005716 C.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Igama’ for goods in Class 33.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viñedos Emiliana, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘GAMMA’ for goods in Class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia