Action brought on 14 January 2009 - Özdemir v OHIM - Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (James Jones)

(Case T-11/09)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rahmi Özdemir (Dreieich, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich, I. Hoes, C. Schröder, K. von Werder and J. Wittenberg, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark)

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 3 November 2008 in case R 858/2007-2;

Dismiss the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of 25 January 2005 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark - application No 3 493 137; and

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "James Jones", for goods in class 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 107 747 of the word mark "Jack & Jones" for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437 of the word mark "Jack Jones" for goods in class 25; Benelux trade mark registration No 474 622 of the word mark "Jack Jones" for goods in class 25; Denmark trade mark registration No VR 1990 06569 of the word mark "Jack & Jones" for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there has been no proof of use submitted before the Board of Appeal for United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437.

____________