EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TN0194

Case T-194/09: Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM)

OJ C 167, 18.7.2009, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.7.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/18


Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM)

(Case T-194/09)

2009/C 167/36

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Lan Airlines, SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA (Manises, Spain)

Form of order sought

declare, in view of the lodging of this pleading and the documents attached to it, that the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office of 19 February 2009 in Case R 0107/2008-4 has been lodged within the prescribed period and in the correct form and, following the appropriate procedural steps, deliver judgment annulling the said decision and expressly order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM’ (Application No 4 448 061) for services in class 39.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lan Airlines, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘LAN’ (No 3 350 899) for services in classes 35, 39 and 43; and the Community figurative mark constituted by the word ‘LAN’ flanked by a star (No 3 694 957) for services in class 39.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (replaced by Regulation No 207/2009).


Top