Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/29 |

---

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Gres La Sagra v OHIM — Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE)

(Case T-130/08)

(2008/C 116/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gres La Sagra, SL (Alameda de la Sagra, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, lawyer, and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ceramicalcora, SA (Alcora, 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) (OHIM) of 30 January 2008 in Case R-1609/2006-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | As a consequence of that annulment, grant trade mark application 3109006, not only for the services in Class 39 (already granted upon the dismissal of the opposition B690695 as regards those services, which has now become res judicata), but also for the remaining goods and services covered by the application in Classes 19, 21 and 40, and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order OHIM, and the other parties before the Court, to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested, and reject the claims of OHIM and the other parties before the Court. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gres La Sagra, SL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘VENATTO (marble stone)’ (Application No 3 109 066) for goods and services in Classes 19, 21, 39 and 40.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark for the sign ‘VENETO (céramicas)’ (No 2 115 543; 2 056 688; 2 056 689 and 2 056 699) for goods and services in Classes 27, 19, 21 and 39 respectively.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part. The Opposition Division held that there was a likelihood of confusion in the relevant territory for the goods and services at issue in Classes 19, 21 and 40, but that there was no such likelihood of confusion in relation to those services at issue in Class 39.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

---

[Top](#document1)