CELEX: 62010TN0477
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-477/10: Action brought on 9 October 2010 — SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)

18.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 346/48
            
         Action brought on 9 October 2010 — SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)
   (Case T-477/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/94
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH (Gronau, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, 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: SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS GmbH (Wels, Austria)
   
      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 22 July 2010 in Case R 1393/2009-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS GmbH.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and international registration ‘SE’ for goods in Class 25 and German word marks ‘SE So Easy’ and ‘SE-Blusen’ for goods in Classes 14, 18, 24 and 25.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The contested decision was annulled and remitted to the Opposition Division for further consideration.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in that the marks at issue are identical and there is a likelihood of confusion.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).