Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2004/284/56

Case T-388/04: Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Habib Kachakil Amar against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

OJ C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 29–29 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

20.11.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/29

Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Habib Kachakil Amar against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-388/04)

(2004/C 284/56)

Language in which the application was submitted: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 September 2004 by Habib Kachakil Amar, represented by Juan Carlos Heder, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the contested decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 20 July 2004 in Case R 175/2004-1, and

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Community trade mark sought:

Figurative mark consisting of a thick black longitudinal line ending in a triangle B application No 3 235 157 for products in Class 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear, in particular sports footwear)

Examiner's decision:

Application rejected as falling within the absolute grounds of refusal provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Application dismissed.

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of the abovementioned regulation and breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
Top