CELEX: C2007/042/53
Language: en
Date: 2007-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-391/06: Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Karstadt Quelle v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (S-HE)

24.2.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 42/31
            
         Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Karstadt Quelle v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (S-HE)
   (Case T-391/06)
   (2007/C 42/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft (Essen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, 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: dm drogerie markt GmbH
   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) No R 301/2006-1 of 26 September 2006;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: dm drogerie markt GmbH.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘S-HE’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 766 723).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘SHE’ for goods in Classes 3 and 25, German figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25, and international figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial granting of the appeal, partial rejection of the application.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), on the ground that 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).