CELEX: 62015TN0205
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-205/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)

22.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/36
            
         Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)
   (Case T-205/15)
   (2015/C 205/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Aguirre and Company, SA. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark representing a sports shoe —Community trade mark No 1050520-0001
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 696/2013-3
   
      Forms of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               alter the contested decision so as to find that the ground of invalidity laid down in Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002 found by the Board of Appeal is not met in this case;
            
         
               —
            
            
               or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               and, in any event, order OHIM to pay the costs and the costs of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that the contested decision contained inconsistent statements with the result that it is insufficiently reasoned.
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 25(1)(e) Regulation No 6/2002.
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002.