Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:577
Date: 2008-12-16
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Concept and criteria for assessment
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 21 March 2007 - Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM - Design for Woman (DEITECH) (Case T -86/07) 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 40/941, 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).