This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/117/42
Case T-86/07: Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
Case T-86/07: Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
Case T-86/07: Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 26–26
(MT)
|
26.5.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 117/27 |
Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
(Case T-86/07)
(2007/C 117/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Design for Woman SA
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2); |
|
— |
reject Community trade mark application No 3 378 643 as regards all goods in Class 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear); |
|
— |
order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Design for Woman SA
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DEITECH ’for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (Application No 3 378 643)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German figurative mark ‘DEI-tex ’for goods in Class 25 and the international figurative mark ‘DEI-tex ’for goods in Class 25, the opposition having been brought against registration in Class 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the evidence submitted by the applicant was not regarded as sufficient proof of genuine use and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).