Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 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)](#ntr1-C_2007117EN.01002701-E0001), 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.

---

[Top](#document1)