Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/79 |

---

Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Sociedad Agricola Requingua v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (TORO DE PIEDRA)

(Case T-358/09)

2009/C 267/141

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: E. Vorbuchner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (Toro, Spain)

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 18 June 2009 in case R 1117/2008-2; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to bear all the costs, i.e. the costs of the opposition proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the present proceedings; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay its own costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “TORO DE PIEDRA”, for goods in class 33

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark “D. ORIGEN TORO” for goods in class 33; Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Denominación de Origen TORO” for goods in class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009 and the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal failed to hear the latest submission of the applicant; infringement of the obligation to state reasons according to Article 75(1) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to reason why it abstained from taking the latest submission of the applicant into account.

---

[Top](#document1)