Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007TO0380

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2008.
Dimitrios Kaloudis v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR - Previous national word mark Roland Garros - Late payment of the appeal fees - Decision of the Board of Appeal deeming the action to be unfounded.
Case T-380/07.

European Court Reports 2008 II-00208*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2008:412





Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2008 – Kaloudis v OHIM – FFT (RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR)

(Case T-380/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR – Previous national word mark Roland Garros – Late payment of the appeal fees – Decision of the Board of Appeal deeming the action to be unfounded

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification – Defects in service (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68) (see paras 30-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 876/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Fédération française de tennis (FFT) and Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Dimitrios Kaloudis

Community trade mark sought:

Figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR for goods in Class 25 – Application No 3114477

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Fédération française de tennis (FFT)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

National word mark Roland Garros for goods in Classes 3, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 32, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal deemed non-existent for delay in paying the appeal fee


Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action as being in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law and in part manifestly inadmissible.

2.

Orders Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis to pay the costs.

Top