- 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-393/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KENZO — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Late submission of documents — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TA0393
62012TA0393
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 81/15
(Case T-393/12)(1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KENZO - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Late submission of documents - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 081/19)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti and N. Parrotta, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2012 (Case R 1659/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.
(1)
OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.