Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0154

Case T-154/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa Zenato)

IO C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 25–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/25


Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa Zenato)

(Case T-154/11)

2011/C 139/47

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible;

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it upholds the appeal, upholds the opposition and rejects in its entirety the application for registration, and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition and appeal proceedings;

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘RIPASSA ZENATO’ (registration application No 5 877 865), for goods in Class 33

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian word mark “RIPASSO” (No 682 213), for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To uphold the opposition and to reject in its entirety the application for registration

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09.


Top