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 62015TN0205

Case T-205/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)

OJ C 205, 22.6.2015, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/36

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)

(Case T-205/15)

(2015/C 205/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aguirre and Company, SA. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark representing a sports shoe —Community trade mark No 1050520-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 696/2013-3

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

alter the contested decision so as to find that the ground of invalidity laid down in Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002 found by the Board of Appeal is not met in this case;

—

or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;

—

and, in any event, order OHIM to pay the costs and the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

—

infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that the contested decision contained inconsistent statements with the result that it is insufficiently reasoned.

—

infringement of Article 25(1)(e) Regulation No 6/2002.

—

infringement of Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Top