CELEX: 62011TN0463
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-463/11: Action brought on 23 August 2011 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)

8.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 298/28
            
         Action brought on 23 August 2011 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)
   (Case T-463/11)
   2011/C 298/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dectane GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. (Lippstadt, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2011;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘DAYLINE’ for goods in Class 11 — application No 7 070 238.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘Ledayline’ for goods in Class 11.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and refusal to register the mark as a Community trade mark.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.