Action brought on 6 September 2010 - Preparados Alimenticios v OHIM - Rila Feinkost-Importe (Jambo Afrika)

(Case T-377/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Preparados Alimenticios, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG (Stemwede-Levern, Germany)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in case R 1144/2009-1;

Declare the present action admissible and justified; and

Declare that the contested Community trade mark application shall not be granted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "Jambo Afrika", for goods in classes 29, 30 and 33

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registrations No 2573221, No 2573219 and No 2573216 of the figurative mark "JUMBO", for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2217404 of the figurative mark "JUMBO CUBE", for goods in class 29; Community trade mark registration No 2412823 of the figurative mark "JUMBO MARINADE", for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2413391 of the figurative mark "JUMBO NOKKOS", for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registrations No 2413581, No 2423275, No 2970754, No 3246139, No 3754462 and No 4088761 of the figurative mark "JUMBO" for goods in classes 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion.

____________