CELEX: 62011TN0474
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-474/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)

29.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 319/24
            
         Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
   (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.