Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007TA0086

Case T-86/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark DEITECH — Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

OJ C 32, 7.2.2009, p. 30–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/30


Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)

(Case T-86/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark DEITECH - Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) (initially represented by O. Rauscher, lawyer, then by O. Rauscher and A. Schulz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Design for Woman SA (Bogotá, Colombia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Design for Woman SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Partially annuls 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) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark;

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


Top