Now here's a Court of First Instance appeal on a Community trade mark matter that was first posted in Spanish only: it's asunto T‑101/06, Castell del Remei, S.L. v Oficina de Armonización del Mercado Interior, Bodegas Roda, S.A (nb just before this blog was posted, a French text was subsequently added). So far as the IPKat can glean, this was an application to register as a Community trade mark the sign depicted above, right, for various foods, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks in Classes 29, 30 and 33 (Clase 29: «Carne, pescado, aves y caza; extractos de carne; frutas y legumbres en conserva, secas y cocidas; gelatinas, mermeladas, compotas; huevos, leche y productos lácteos; aceites y grasas comestibles»; Clase 30: «Café, té, cacao, azúcar, arroz, tapioca, sagú, sucedáneos del café; harinas y preparaciones hechas de cereales, pan, pastelería y confitería, helados comestibles; miel, jarabe de melaza; levaduras, polvos para esponjar; sal, mostaza; vinagre, salsas (condimentos), especias; hielo; Clase 33: «Bebidas alcohólicas (excepto cervezas)»).
It looks to the Kat as though an opposition was filed against the Class 33 application, alleging a likelihood of confusion with Bodegas Roda's earlier international and national registrations for wine and liquor in Class 33 of marks containing the words BODEGA RODA, RODA, RODA I and RODA II, as well as pleading the existence of an earlier unregistered mark with more than purely local significance.
At this point things get very hazy. The IPKat thinks the opposition was upheld and that the Board of Appeal affirmed the Opposition Division's decision. It also looks as though the CFI has dismissed the appeal against the Board's ruling. As usual, guidance is very much welcome!
It looks to the Kat as though an opposition was filed against the Class 33 application, alleging a likelihood of confusion with Bodegas Roda's earlier international and national registrations for wine and liquor in Class 33 of marks containing the words BODEGA RODA, RODA, RODA I and RODA II, as well as pleading the existence of an earlier unregistered mark with more than purely local significance.
At this point things get very hazy. The IPKat thinks the opposition was upheld and that the Board of Appeal affirmed the Opposition Division's decision. It also looks as though the CFI has dismissed the appeal against the Board's ruling. As usual, guidance is very much welcome!
ODA, RODA, O dear ...
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html