CELEX: 62010TJ0276
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-15
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011. # El Coto De Rioja, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ - Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. # Case T-276/10.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 – El Coto De Rioja v OHIM – Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)
      (Case T-276/10)
      Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ – Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
      Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation
         No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 49, 52-54)
      
      Re:
      
         
               ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008‑4) concerning
                  invalidity proceedings between El Coto de Rioja, SA and Ms María Álvarez Serrano.
               
            Operative part
      The Court:
      
         
                  1.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                     Designs) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008‑4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of
                     the signs in question is incorrect;
                  
               
            
         
                  2.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	Dismisses the remainder of the action;
               
            
         
                  3.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	Orders OHIM to pay the costs.