This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0451
Case T-451/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
Case T-451/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
Case T-451/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 32–33
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.2.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 37/32 |
Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
(Case T-451/07)
(2008/C 37/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: WellBiz Verein, WellBiz Association (Eschen, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Schnetzer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelhein, Germany)
Form of order sought
— |
To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 2 October 2007 in Case R 1575/2006-1; |
— |
To reject Opposition No B 809 394 of the opponent of 9 March 2005; |
— |
To order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs of the present case and also those incurred in 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 word mark ‘WELLBIZ’ in respect of services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 3 844 479).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘WILD.BIZ’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2 225 175), the opposition being based on some of the services in Class 41.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to all the contested services in Class 41.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the marks in question differ phonetically, figuratively and conceptually, and the mark cited in opposition does not enjoy a particularly high degree of recognition and does not therefore possess a high level of distinctiveness.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).