Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62010TN0233

    Case T-233/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)

    OJ C 195, 17.7.2010, p. 30–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    20/05/2010
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English

    17.7.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 195/30

    Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)

    (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.

    Top