Case T-86/07: Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, leather, trade-mark law

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/27

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, to the
extent
the trade mark is allowed for
that
‘bath-robes’ (class 25).

registration of

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

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 infringe-
ment 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).

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

Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM
— Indena (affilene)

(Case T-87/07)

(2007/C 117/43)

Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen,
Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

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

Parties

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Design for Woman SA

Applicant: Scil Proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by:
V. Dalichau, lawyer)

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

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

Other party
Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

to the proceedings before

the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defen-
dant dated 23 January 2006, and the decision-corrigendum
of
the Second Board of Appeal of 31 January 2007,
Case R 10/2006-2 be annulled as far as the opposition is
dismissed with respect to the goods ‘extracts of medical
plants for use in the … cosmetic and food industries, not
for diagnostic purposes’;

— the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DEITECH’
for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (Application No 3 378 643)

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indena SpA

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘affilene’ for
goods in class 1 — application No 2 751 931

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant