EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0169
Case T-169/10: Action brought on 14 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)
Case T-169/10: Action brought on 14 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)
Case T-169/10: Action brought on 14 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)
OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 49–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.6.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 148/49 |
Action brought on 14 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)
(Case T-169/10)
2010/C 148/79
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Grupo Osborne SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision dated 22.01.2010 of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 223/2009-2 refusing registration of the Community trade mark No 4 769 279 TORO XL in Class 33; |
|
— |
Permit, consequently, registration of the Community trade mark No 4 769 279 TORO XL in Class 33, and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Grupo Osborne.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TORO XL’ (application for registration No 4 769 279) for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 43.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 4 027 124) containing the expression ‘XL’ for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic drinks).
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld and application for registration refused.
Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.