Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012TN0204

Case T-204/12: Action brought on 15 May 2012 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)

IO C 217, 21.7.2012, p. 25–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25


Action brought on 15 May 2012 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)

(Case T-204/12)

2012/C 217/53

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viavita SASU (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

Overturn the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 419/2011-1;

Order OHIM to bear the costs of the applicant; and

In the event that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins in these proceedings as an intervening party, order it to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIAVITA’, for services in classes 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 52201504

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian trade mark registration No 154631 of the word mark ‘VILA VITA PARC’, for services in classes 39 and 42; German trade mark registration No 2097301 of the figurative mark ‘VILA VITA TOURISTIK GMBH’, for goods and services in classes 3, 35, 37, 39 et 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


Top