CELEX: 62010TA0483
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-483/10: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Pukka Luggage v OHIM — Azpiroz Arruti (PUKKA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PUKKA — Opposition by the proprietor of Community and national figurative marks featuring the word element pukas — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal to register)

14.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 13/14
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Pukka Luggage v OHIM — Azpiroz Arruti (PUKKA)
   (Case T-483/10) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PUKKA - Opposition by the proprietor of Community and national figurative marks featuring the word element pukas - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal to register)
   2012/C 13/28
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti (San Sebastián, Spain)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2010 (Case R 1175/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti and The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.