CELEX: 62010TA0276
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-276/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ) (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)

7.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/13
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)
   (Case T-276/10) (1)
   
   (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)
   2012/C 6/22
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: El Coto de Rioja, SA (Oyón, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: María Álvarez Serrano (Gomariz Leiro, Spain)
   
      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 of the judgment
   
   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.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.