CELEX: 62008TN0292
Language: en
Date: 2008-07-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-292/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM

13.9.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 236/16
            
         Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM
   (Case T-292/08)
   (2008/C 236/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio (Logroño, Spain)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision in respect of all or part of the goods refused.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTEN’ (application No 2 798 270) for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word and figurative marks ‘OLTEN’ and Spanish figurative mark ‘OLTENWATCH’ for goods in Class 14.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Principally, infringement of Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and, as a subsidiary plea, infringement of Articles 43(2) and 8(1)(b) of that regulation.