Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:69
Date: 2008-03-12
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Figurative marks applied for
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 6 August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case T-332/04) Language of the case: Spanish An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L ., represented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer. The applicant claims that the Court should: - Annul the decision of the OHIM Second Board of Appeal of 15 June 2004 in Case R-550/2003-2; - Confirm decision 1472/2003 in opposition proceedings B348708 dismissing the opposition brought by the opponent in its entirety and allow the application for the contested mark for all the classes claimed; - Order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs of these proceedings in the event of the proceedings being defended and those parties' claims being rejected. Pleas in law and main arguments: Applicant for Community trade mark:The applicant Community trade mark sought:Figurative mark "COTO D'ARCIS" - Application No 1 558 113 for products in Classes 32 and 33 (alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and preparations for making beverages) and services in Class 39 (transport; packaging and storage of goods) Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:El Coto de Rioja S.A. Mark or sign cited in opposition.Community word marks "COTO DE IMAZ" (No 339 333) and "EL COTO" (No 339 408) for products in Classes 29, 32 and 33, international mark No 442 377 and Spanish marks No 877 219, No 907 966, No 907 967, No 907 985, No 907 989, No 907 993, No 907 994, No 907 995, No 983 888, No 1 290 986,, No 1 614 514, No 1 758 975 and No 2 172 691). Decision of the Opposition Division:Opposition dismissed. Decision of the Board of Appeal:Appeal partially upheld, the trade mark applied for being refused for products in Classes 32 and 33. Pleas in law:Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. ____________