- 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-207/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM — Nike International (NC NICKOL)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0207
62009TN0207
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
18.7.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 167/21
(Case T-207/09)
2009/C 167/42
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: E. Ragot, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, United States)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2009 in case R 554/2008-2 in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009); and
—Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘NC NICKOL’, for goods in class 9
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: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘NIKE’ for a range of goods, amongst them goods in classes 9 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the conditions for the application of the said provision were fulfilled.