CELEX: 62010TA0125
Language: en
Date: 2010-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-125/10: Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)

5.6.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/34
            
         Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)
   (Case T-125/10)
   2010/C 148/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the application, together with the annexes submitted, made against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 in Case R 612/2009-1, admissible; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision on the ground of incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94; (1)
               
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘69 Sex up’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 9, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38 and 41 (application No 5 418 108)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘sex:h:up’ No 305 31 669.9 for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition for all disputed goods
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To rescind the contested decision and reject the opposition
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).