Case T-118/03: Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade mark, trade-mark law

C 146/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

With regard to this last point, the applicant states that the
right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against him
cannot be neutralised by the protection of public interest as
regards public security and international relations. Considering
all the damages suffered by the applicant, the balance of
interest is in his favour.

( 1) Not published in the OJ yet.
( 2) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
L 295 of 30.10.2001, p. 12).

( 3) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
to combating terrorism (OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 70).

( 4) Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant.

Community trade mark
sought:

Figurative mark ‘NLSPORT’ —
Application No 816 512 for
goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
and 25.

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Naulover S.A.

trade

mark
Community
No 13417, consisting in an N
superposed on an L, both in
English characters.

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Refusal of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and accept-
ance of the opposition.

Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Pleas in law:

application

of
Incorrect
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
fusion).

(Case T-117/03)

(2003/C 146/72)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom,
represented by
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-118/03)

(2003/C 146/73)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

— Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second

Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R95/2002-1, and

— Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the
costs arising from the proceedings and from Case No 95/
2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 577/2002-1, and

— Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the
costs arising from the proceedings and from Case 577/
2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 578/2002-1, and

— Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the
costs arising from the proceedings and from Case 578/
2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

The applicant.

Figurative mark ‘NLJEANS’ —
Application No 816.454 for
goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
and 25.

Naulover S.A.

figurative mark
Community
No 13417, consisting in an N
superposed on an L, both in
English characters.

Refusal of the opposition.

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and accept-
ance of the opposition.

application

Incorrect
of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
fusion).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant.

Community trade mark
sought:

Figurative mark ‘NLACTIVE’ —
Application No 816.629 for
goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
and 25.

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Naulover S.A.

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

trade

mark
Community
No 13417, consisting in an N
superposed on an L, both in
English characters.

Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Refusal of the opposition.

(Case T-119/03)

(2003/C 146/74)

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and accept-
ance of the opposition.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law:

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom,
represented by
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.

application

Incorrect
of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
fusion).