- 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-83/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON).
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0083
62014TN0083
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 112/51
(Case T-83/14)
2014/C 112/65
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Parties
Applicant: LTJ Diffusion (Colombes, France) (represented by: S. Lederman, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arthur et Aston SAS (Giberville, France)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 December 2013 in Case R 1963/2012-1 in so far as it ruled that the use of the earlier mark ‘ARTHUR’ No 17731 did not comply with the provisions of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—if the Court, following its case-law (judgment of 4 June 2013, Case T-514/11, ‘DECATHLON’), finds that it has no power to rule on the merits of the opposition filed by the company LTJ DIFFUSION on 14 April 2011 since the Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position, it is also asked the following: to refer the case to the competent formation of the Court for a ruling to be made on the merits of the opposition filed by the company LTJ DIFFUSION on 14 April 2011 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 9509911, relating to the word sign ‘ARTHUR & ASTON’, to designate certain goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 and specifically ‘footwear, boots and shoes’.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Arthur et Aston SAS
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARTHUR & ASTON’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 (Community trade mark application No 9 509 911)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National semi-figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘Arthur’ for goods in Class 25.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.