- 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-145/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Device of two parallel stripes)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0145
62014TN0145
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
28.4.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 129/35
(Case T-145/14)
(2014/C 129/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: adidas (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Case R 1208/2012-2;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The mark (‘other type of mark’) for footwear in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 398 141
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations Nos 3 517 646, 3 517 612, 3 517 588, 3 517 661, 4 269 072, 6 081 889; German trade mark registrations Nos 944 624, 944 623, 399 50 559, 897 134; International trade mark registration No 391 692 for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28; and non-registered mark/sign used in the course of trade in Germany
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) CTMR.