Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/30 |

---

Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)

(Case T-233/10)

2010/C 195/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Individual Company) (Istanbul, Turkey)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2010 in case R 738/2009-1, as far as the opposition decision No B 1326299 has been upheld for all the contested goods; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JUMPMAN’, 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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2657489 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 2752145 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.

---

[Top](#document1)