EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
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)
Case T-10/07: Action brought on 8 January 2007 — FVB v OHIM — FVD (FVB)
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).