This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0605
Case T-605/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
Case T-605/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
Case T-605/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, pp. 32–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.1.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 24/32 |
Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
(Case T-605/13)
2014/C 24/59
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Bal Harbor, United States) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 18/2013-2; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE’ — Community trade mark application No 9 784 539
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 registrations Nos 462 523, 6 373 971 and Spanish trade mark registrations Nos 152 231, 715 524, 2 796 505
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and rejected the CTM application in its entirety
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.