CELEX: C2007/117/42
Language: en
Date: 2007-05-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-86/07: Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)

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), 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.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).