Action brought on 26 May 2010 - Tsakiris-Mallas v OHIM - Seven (7 Seven Fashion Shoes)

(Case T-244/10)

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.

____________