- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-292/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0292
62008TN0292
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.9.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 236/16
(Case T-292/08)
(2008/C 236/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio (Logroño, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision in respect of all or part of the goods refused.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTEN’ (application No 2 798 270) for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word and figurative marks ‘OLTEN’ and Spanish figurative mark ‘OLTENWATCH’ for goods in Class 14.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Principally, infringement of Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and, as a subsidiary plea, infringement of Articles 43(2) and 8(1)(b) of that regulation.