This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TA0291
Case T-291/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO — Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Case T-291/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO — Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Case T-291/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO — Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
IO C 267, 7.11.2009, p. 59–59
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 23/09/2009
- Date lodged:
- 01/08/2007
- Author:
- Cúirt Chéadchéime
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Spáinnis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
7.11.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 267/59 |
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO)
(Case T-291/07) (1)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO - Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action - Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2009/C 267/103
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: M. Lobato García-Miján and B. Díaz de Escauriaza, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: González Byass, SA (Cádiz, Spain)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA and González Byass, SA
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2); |
|
2. |
orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
