This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/143/64
Case T-111/06: Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)
Case T-111/06: Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)
Case T-111/06: Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)
ĠU C 143, 17.6.2006, p. 32–32
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 17/06/2006; Data tal-pubblikazzjoni
- Author:
- Il-Qorti tal-Prim’Istanza
- Form:
- Informazzjoni ġudizzjarja
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
|
17.6.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 143/32 |
Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)
(Case T-111/06)
(2006/C 143/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Godenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwälte)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 February 2006 (R 3/2005-2); |
|
— |
order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VITAL& FIT’ for goods in Class 32 (Application no. 1 457 951).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘VITAFIT’ no. 1 050 163 for goods in Class 32.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of the subject of the appeal by the Board of Appeal (Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)); breach of the right to a fair hearing and the obligation to state reasons (Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94); breach of the obligation to take into account the facts and evidence which were not submitted late (Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94); breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
