CELEX: 62008TN0364
Language: en
Date: 2008-08-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-364/08: Action brought on 29 August 2008 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

25.10.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 272/47
            
         Action brought on 29 August 2008 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)
   (Case T-364/08)
   (2008/C 272/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, United States)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2008 in case R 1591/2007-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nollie’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 25 and 26 — application No 4 601 621
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 839 740 of the word mark ‘NOLI’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 361 525 of the word mark ‘NOLI’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to find that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks with respect to all the contested goods; infringement of Article 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed or neglected to take into account properly the facts, evidence and arguments submitted.