EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CO0388
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011. # Félix Muñoz Arraiza v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) - Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA - Refusal to register -Likelihood of confusion. # Case C-388/10 P.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011.
Félix Muñoz Arraiza v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) - Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA - Refusal to register -Likelihood of confusion.
Case C-388/10 P.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011.
Félix Muñoz Arraiza v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) - Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA - Refusal to register -Likelihood of confusion.
Case C-388/10 P.
European Court Reports 2011 I-00042*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2011:185
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM
(Case C-388/10 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) – Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA – Refusal to register – Likelihood of confusion
1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 31-32)
2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 74)
Re:
| Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T‑138/09 | Muñoz Arraiza | v | OHIM | – | Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA) | , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2009 (Case R 721/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja and Mr Félix Muñoz Arraiza. |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Mr Muñoz Arraiza is ordered to pay the costs. |