In Case T-642/13, the General Court dismissed the appeal in the following invalidity action.

OHIM and the Court upheld the invalidity action, finding that there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

 As regards whether the earlier word mark had been put to genuine use, the opponent had proved such use for the goods ‘clothing and footwear’.

With regard to the likelihood of confusion, the goods at issue to be similar or identical. The marks are phonetically identical and visually and conceptually similar, in so far as the marks at issue share the word element ‘she’ and the earlier word mark is made up exclusively of that element.

 Moreover, the earlier word mark has a low degree of distinctive character. However, according to well-established case-law, it is common in the clothing sector for the same mark to be configured in various ways according to the type of product which it designates. It is also common for a single clothing manufacturer to use sub-braands in order to distinguish its various lines from one another. In the present case, the mark at issue consists of the same word sign as the earlier word mark and differs from it solely by a figurative element without particular meaning could be perceived as a particular configuration of the earlier word mark . So the goods covered by the mark at issue could be perceived by the relevant public as originating from the same undertaking or undertakings economically linked to the earlier word mark.