EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-53/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0053

62011CN0053

February 7, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

21.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/10

(Case C-53/11 P)

2011/C 152/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Nike International Ltd., Aurelio Muñoz Molina

Form of order sought

That the Court set aside the judgment under appeal.

That the Court deliver a fresh judgment on the substance, rejecting the appeal against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court.

That the Court order the applicant [before the General Court] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The legal basis of the contested decision is Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR, in relation to the current Article 59 of the CTMR. However, the judgment under appeal makes no reference at any point either to Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR or to Article 59 of the CTMR, and makes no ruling on their applicability to the particular case. OHIM considers that that constitutes an error of law and a failure to state sufficient reasons.

OHIM considers that its Guidelines are not applicable to the particular case. Nevertheless, the judgment under appeal states on two occasions that the Boards of Appeal are obliged to apply the OHIM Guidelines. That constitutes, in OHIM’s opinion, an error of law.

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia