This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/310/39
Case T-286/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRES DE GAZATE)
Case T-286/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRES DE GAZATE)
Case T-286/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRES DE GAZATE)
OB C 310, 16.12.2006, p. 19–20
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
16.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 310/19 |
Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRES DE GAZATE)
(Case T-286/06)
(2006/C 310/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gόmez, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vinícola de Tomelloso S.C.L.
Form of order sought
— |
annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2006 in Case R 421/2004-2 and order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vinícola de Tomelloso S.C.L.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark TORRE DE GAZATE in respect of goods in Class 33 — Application No 1 632 017.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks TORRES, international word mark TORRES, and international word mark LAS TORRES in respect of goods in Class 33.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) because the word TORRE is a dominant component in the overall impression produced by the mark applied for, there are aural and visual similarities between the conflicting marks and there is a likelihood of confusion making it impossible for them to coexist on the market.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).