Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 – Dominio de la Vega v OHIM
(Case C‑459/09 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA – Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA – Existence of a likelihood of confusion in part of the territory of the European Union – Assessment of the similarity between the marks – Dominant element
1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32, 51, 64-65)
2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Earlier mark consisting of a Community trade mark – Refusal of registration where there is an absolute ground for refusal even if it obtains in only part of the Community (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)
3. 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. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 44)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-458/07 | Dominio de la Vega | v | OHIM | dismissing the 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
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
2. |
Dominio de la Vega, SL is ordered to pay the costs. |