CELEX: C2006/190/47
Language: en
Date: 2006-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-160/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

12.8.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/26
            
         Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)
   (Case T-160/06)
   (2006/C 190/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Estancia Piedra SL (Toro, Spain) (represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franciscan Vineyards Inc. (St. Helena, USA)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 361/2005-2);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’ for products in class 33 (Alcoholic beverages) — Community trade mark No 1 894 831
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Franciscan Vineyards Inc.
   
      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘ESTANCIA’ for products in classes 29, 30 and 33 (meat, fish, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages …)
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Firstly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it was concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’. Secondly, infringement of the procedural requirements since the Board of Appeal accepted, according to the applicant, an invalid and late filed authorisation from Franciscan Vineyards for their representatives and illegitimately extended the time limit for Franciscan Vineyards to file the authorisation.