CELEX: 62015TN0277
Language: en
Date: 2015-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-277/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)

27.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 245/42
            
         Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)
   (Case T-277/15)
   (2015/C 245/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Tipperary, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘Terraway’ — Application for registration No 11 988 301
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 2496/2014-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM and substitute it with one which makes a ruling or which orders that a ruling be made — at length — on the substantive/material issues, and not just the issue of whether the court fee was paid in good time;
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The applicant claims that he paid the fee for appeal, provided for in Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, on 20 November 2014;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In terms of the substance of the case, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and (b), Article 7(1)(g) and the last part of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.