|
14.8.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 221/49 |
Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Tsakiris-Mallas v OHIM — Seven (7 Seven Fashion Shoes)
(Case T-244/10)
()
2010/C 221/79
Language in which the application was lodged: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Tsakiris-Mallas Α.Ε. (Argiroupoli Attiki, Greece) (represented by: Ν. Simantiras, 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: Seven S.p.A. (Turin, Italy)
Form of order sought from the General Court
|
— |
annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)of 22 March 2010 in Case R 1045/2009-2 |
|
— |
order that the application No 544581 for registration as a community trade mark of the figurative mark ‘7 Seven Fashion Shoes’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 be accepted, and |
|
— |
order the parties opposing these proceedings to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘7 Seven Fashion Shoes’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (application for registration No 5445481)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark ‘7Seven’, registration Νο 769 296, for goods in Classes 14, 16 and 18; and Italian figurative mark registration Νο 928116 for goods in Classes 16 and 18
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the application for registration for goods in Class 18
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue; infringement of Article 65(2), read with Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; infringement of Article 65(2) read in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the Board of Appeal entirely failed to examine the question to what extent Article 8(5) of the regulation did or did not apply.