This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TA0083
Case T-83/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Earlier national figurative mark Arthur — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character)
Case T-83/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Earlier national figurative mark Arthur — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character)
Case T-83/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Earlier national figurative mark Arthur — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character)
OJ C 38, 1.2.2016, p. 48–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 38/48 |
Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)
(Case T-83/14) (1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON - Earlier national figurative mark Arthur - No genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character))
(2016/C 038/62)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: LTJ Diffusion (Colombes, France) (represented initially by S. Lederman, and subsequently by F. Fajgenbaum, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arthur et Aston SAS (Giberville, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1963/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between LTJ Diffusion and Arthur et Aston SAS.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders LTJ Diffusion to pay the costs. |