EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2007/056/67

Case T-10/07: Action brought on 8 January 2007 — FVB v OHIM — FVD (FVB)

OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/35


Action brought on 8 January 2007 — FVB v OHIM — FVD (FVB)

(Case T-10/07)

(2007/C 56/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: P. Koehler, 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: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH

Form of order sought

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in appeal case R 1343/2005-4 of 6 November 2006 so as to annul the decision of 12 September 2005 on opposition No B 549 362 of the Finanz- und Versorgungsdienstgesellschaft für Finanzberatung und Versorgemanagement mbH against application No 2 126 175 and to reject the opposition;

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FVB’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 (Application No 2 126 175).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘FVD’ for services in Class 36, the opposition being brought against the registration in Class 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).


Top