- 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-233/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0233
62010TN0233
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
17.7.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 195/30
(Case T-233/10)
2010/C 195/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Individual Company) (Istanbul, Turkey)
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 11 March 2010 in case R 738/2009-1, as far as the opposition decision No B 1326299 has been upheld for all the contested goods;
—Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and
—Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JUMPMAN’, for goods in class 25
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2657489 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 2752145 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.