Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/20 |

---

Action brought on 14 July 2010 — dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM — S.E.M.T.E.E. (caldea)

(Case T-304/10)

()

2010/C 260/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and P. Hiller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.E.M.T.E.E. (Escaldes Engornay, Andorra)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1 and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1 and remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in orange, blue and white ‘caldea’, for goods and services in classes 3, 35, 37, 42, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 5691845

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

Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 894004 of the word mark ‘BALEA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 8

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was not a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.

---

[Top](#document1)