Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-512/04 P Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Krafft SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT — Opposition from the proprietor of national marks containing the word element  krafft  — Similarity between marks — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/13

made by decision of 30 September 2004, received at the Court
on 27 October 2004, in the proceedings between Autohaus
Ostermann GmbH and VAV Versicherungs AG — the Court
of C.W.A. Timmermans
(Second Chamber),
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, R. Silva
de Lapuerta, G. Arestis and J. Klučka,, Judges; P. Léger, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 December
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

composed

(OHIM),

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Agent: G.
Schneider), Krafft SA, established in Andoain (Spain) (repre-
sented by P. Koch Moreno, abogada) — an appeal under
Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 14
December 2004, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K.
Schiemann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur)
and E. Levits, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2005, the operative
part of which is as follows

Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability
in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Direc-
tives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (fourth motor insurance Direc-
tive)
is to be interpreted as not precluding a national rule from
allowing an injured party to bring a legal action against the insurance
undertaking within the three-month period set down by that provision,
after the setting of a reasonable period for payment.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG shall pay

the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 45 of 19.02.2005

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 1 December 2005

in Case C-512/04 P Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn
GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Krafft
SA (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion —
Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT —
Opposition from the proprietor of national marks containing
the word element ‘krafft’ — Similarity between marks —
Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 60/27)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-512/04 P: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn
GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany) (repre-
sented by U. Sander, Rechtsanwalt), the other parties to the
proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Case C-5/05 SA: Maria Fernanda Gil do Nascimento and
Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities)

(2006/C 60/28)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

In Case C-5/05 SA: Maria Fernanda Gil do Nascimento and
J. Grilo Simões) against Commission of the
Others (lawyer:
European Communities (Agents: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal
and P. Guerra e Andrade) — application for authorisation to
serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European
Communities, brought on 11 March 2005, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.
Malenovský (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet and
A. Ó Caoimh,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 24 November 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the matter.