Case T-111/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), beverage industry, trade-mark law

C 143/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Geträn-
keindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)

40/94, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the
opposing trade marks.

(Case T-111/06)

(2006/C 143/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Parties

Action brought on 7 April 2006 — Fiskeri og
Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council

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)

(Case T-115/06)

(2006/C 143/65)

Language of the case: English

Form of order sought

Parties

— 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.

Applicants: Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening (Oslo,
Norway), Norske Sjømatbedrifters Landsforening (Trondheim,
Norway), Salmar Farming AS (Frøya, Norway), Hydroteck AS
(Kristiansund, Norway), Hallvard Lerøy AS (Bergen, Norway),
Lerøy Midnor AS (Hestvika, Norway) (represented by: B. Servais
and T.S. Paulsen, lawyers)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Council of the European Union

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 proceed-
ings: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Mark or
‘VITAFIT’ no. 1 050 163 for goods in Class 32.

sign cited in opposition: The German word mark

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 imposing defi-
nitive anti-dumping duties for imports of salmon origin-
ating in Norway; and

— order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 obliga-
tion 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 Regu-
lation No 40/94); breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No

The applicants, who are Norwegian salmon producers, farmers
and exporters or representing such undertakings, seek the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17
January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports
of farmed salmon originating in Norway (1) (‘contested regu-
lation’) as they find that the regulation violates several articles
of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995
on protection against dumped imports from countries not
members of the European Community (2) (‘basic regulation’).