EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0474
Case T-474/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
Case T-474/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
Case T-474/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
IO C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.10.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 319/24 |
Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
(Case T-474/11)
2011/C 319/51
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Santiago, Chile)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2011 in Case R 637/2010-2; |
— |
Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs; |
— |
In the alternative, stay the proceedings until delivery of a legally binding decision in the invalidity proceedings pending before OHIM concerning filing reference 000005716 C. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Igama’ for goods in Class 33.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viñedos Emiliana, SA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘GAMMA’ for goods in Class 33.
Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.