This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0523
Case T-523/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
Case T-523/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
Case T-523/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
OJ C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 355/24 |
Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
(Case T-523/11)
2011/C 355/44
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Maxima Grupė, UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and E. Saukalas, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Maximo, SL (Oyón, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2011 in case R 1584/2010-4; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MAXIMA PREMIUM’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32 AND 33 — Community trade mark application No 6981443
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6642284, of the word mark ‘MAXIMO’, for goods in class 33
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal found that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking into account all the relevant aspects of the present case, including inherently low distinctive character of ‘MAXIMO/MAXIMA’, similarity of the signs, and the fact that the relevant public is highly attentive and well informed.