7.3.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 55/47 |
Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Özdemir v OHIM — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (James Jones)
(Case T-11/09)
(2009/C 55/85)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Rahmi Özdemir (Dreieich, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich, I. Hoes, C. Schröder, K. von Werder and J. Wittenberg, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 November 2008 in case R 858/2007-2; |
— |
Dismiss the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of 25 January 2005 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark — application No 3 493 137; and |
— |
Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the opposition proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘James Jones’, 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: Community trade mark registration No 1 107 747 of the word mark ‘Jack & Jones’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437 of the word mark ‘Jack Jones’ for goods in class 25; Benelux trade mark registration No 474 622 of the word mark ‘Jack Jones’ for goods in class 25; Denmark trade mark registration No VR 1990 06569 of the word mark ‘Jack & Jones’ for goods in class 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there has been no proof of use submitted before the Board of Appeal for United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437.