6.11.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/7

—

(Case C-388/10 P)

()

2010/C 301/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Félix Muñoz Arraiza (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja

Form of order sought

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T-138/09 on the ground that the opposing trade marks are wholly compatible with the Community trade mark application No 4 121 621, ‘Riojavina’;

—order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

A.The first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark. The plea concerning infringement of that provision is further subdivided into two parts:

—Distortion of the clear sense of the facts and of the list of goods and services actually designated in the trade mark application and misinterpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Canon (2), paragraph 23, in conjunction with the judgments of the Court of Justice of 9 December 1981 in Case 193/80 and of 15 October 1985 in Case 281/83. This part of the plea alleges that the General Court restricted the list of goods actually designated in the Community trade mark application, limiting the general category ‘vinegars’ to ‘wine vinegar’, taking as its basis two arguments: the first entailing taking into account a national legislative definition of ‘vinegar’, which is indirect and in the nature of a reference, namely the Disposición Adicional Primera de la Ley española 24/2003 de la Viña y el Vino (First Additional Provision to the Law concerning grapevines and wine), instead of a direct normative definition based on Community law and confirmed by the judgments of the Court of Justice of 9 December 1981 in Case 193/80 and of 15 October 1985 in Case 281/83. In those judgments it is clearly stated that Community law interprets vinegar as a generic term and wholly dissociates it from any meaning requiring it to be derived from wine. The second argument used by the General Court to equate the category ‘vinegar’ with ‘wine vinegar’ consists in stating that wine producers usually also produce wine vinegar, which amounts to begging the question since such a statement is in turn based on the equation of the category ‘vinegar’ with ‘wine vinegar’. Furthermore, for the purpose of drawing a comparison in the context of the analysis of the likelihood of confusion, the judgments in Case 193/80 and Case 281/83 establish a connection between the generic character of vinegar and the relevant territory. The General Court, however, distorted the relevant territory when it stated that the type of vinegar most commonly produced and consumed ‘in the world’ is wine vinegar, since the territory to be considered is that of the European Union.

—Failure to observe the procedural rules relating to the appraisal of evidence and to the burden of proof in accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-375/97 (3) and Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 (4). This part of the plea also complains that the General Court carried out its comparison of the signs on the basis (not substantiated in the proceedings) of the reputation and/or high degree of distinctive character of the trade mark ‘Rioja’.

B.The second plea in law alleges infringement, by analogy, of Article 43 of Regulation No 40/94 (5), now Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.

—This complaint alleges that the General Court restricted the list of goods and services actually designated because of the declaration of the future use of the trade mark applied for, something which is possible only for trade marks which have been registered for at least five years and subject to proof of use requested by the proprietor of the mark at issue pursuant to Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 78, p, 1).

Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507.

General Motors [1999] ECR I-542.

Windsurfing Chiemsee [1999] ECR I-2779.

OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

—