EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007TA0458

Case T-458/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA — Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

OJ C 267, 7.11.2009, p. 61–61 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/61


Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)

(Case T-458/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA - Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/108

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, SL (Requena, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bernell y Martinéz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ambrosio Velasco, SA (Dicastillo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The action is dismissed.

2.

Dominio de la Vega, SL is ordered to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


Top