CELEX: 62010TN0323
Language: en
Date: 2008-08-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-323/10: Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou Kleiderfabrik (CHABOU)

23.10.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 288/42
            
         
      Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou Kleiderfabrik (CHABOU)
      (Case T-323/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/81)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Chickmouza Chabou (Rheine, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Triebold, 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: Chalou Kleiderfabrik GmbH (Herschweiler-Pettersheim, Germany)
      
         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 20 May 2010 in Case R 1165/2009-1 or amend that decision and reject the opposition
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
         Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
      
         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark CHABOU for goods in class 25.
      
         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Chalou Kleiderfabrik GmbH.
      
         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark Chalou, registered as a national and international trade mark for goods in class 25.
      
         Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.
      
         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.
      
         Pleas in law: The contested decision fails to take account of the special circumstances of the present case and, instead, applies the established principles concerning the issues of the similarity of signs and of protected goods and services in the light of the likelihood of confusion in a purely formulaic and mechanical fashion, without sufficient regard to the specific aspects of the case and the requisite global assessment of all the circumstances.