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 62015TN0277

    Case T-277/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)

    OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 42–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.7.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 245/42

    Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)

    (Case T-277/15)

    (2015/C 245/51)

    Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

    Parties

    Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Tipperary, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal)

    Details of the proceedings before OHIM

    Applicant: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘Terraway’ — Application for registration No 11 988 301

    Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 2496/2014-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM and substitute it with one which makes a ruling or which orders that a ruling be made — at length — on the substantive/material issues, and not just the issue of whether the court fee was paid in good time;

    Pleas in law

    —

    The applicant claims that he paid the fee for appeal, provided for in Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, on 20 November 2014;

    —

    In terms of the substance of the case, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and (b), Article 7(1)(g) and the last part of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top