Case T-149/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark CASTELLANI — Earlier national word marks CASTELLUM and CASTELLUCA — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2007-11-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, trade-mark law

C 8/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 21 October 2005 (Case R 1063/2004-2), as
rectified on 16 November 2005, relating to invalidity proceed-
ings between Wuppermann AG and Tegometall International
AG.

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 in Case R 3/2005-2
relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung &
Co. KG and Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the

intervener;

2. Orders Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG to pay the

costs.

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November
2007 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl
Stiftung (VITAL FIT)

(Case T-111/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the Community figurative mark VITAL FIT —
Earlier national word mark VITAFIT — Relative ground for
refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to a fair hearing — Obli-
gation to state reasons)

(2008/C 8/26)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November
2007 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und
Service (CASTELLANI)

(Case T-149/06) (1)

for

the

figurative

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation
trade mark
CASTELLANI — Earlier national word marks CASTELLUM
and CASTELLUCA — Relative ground of refusal — Likeli-
hood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94)

Community

(2008/C 8/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG
(Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert
and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Applicant: Castellani SpA (Campagna Gello, Italy) (represented
by: A. Di Maso and M. Di Maso, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo,
agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM,
intervener before the Court of First Instance: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
(Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Markant Handels und Service GmbH (Offenburg,
Germany)

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/15

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005-1), relating to
opposition proceedings between Markant Handels und Service
GmbH and Castellani SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) of 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005 1);

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Investire Partecipazioni SpA shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007
— Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

(Case T-102/06) (1)

(Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial
assistance — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 8/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007
— Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(Case T-418/05) (1)

Parties

(Action for annulment — ERDF — Measure that cannot be
subject of an action — Preparatory measure —
the

Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 8/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented
by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, Lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Velardo and L. Flynn, Agents, assisted by G.
Faedo, Lawyer)

Re:

Parties

Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented
by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, Lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by G.
Faedo, Lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of decisions allegedly contained in
two letters from the Commission's Directorate General
for
Regional Policy of 11 and 23 August 2005, addressed to the
Permanent Representation of
the Italian Republic to the
European Union, concerning the ineligibility, for assistance from
the European Regional Development Fund, of a measure
provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document
for the period 1997-1999 concerning the Region of Piedmont
(Italy).

of

for

annulment

Commission Decision
Application
C(2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005, concerning a reduction
of the assistance granted by the European Regional Develop-
ment Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Decision C(97) 2199, of 27 July
1997, approving assistance from the ERDF for measures
provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document
for the period 1997-1999 concerning the region of Piedmont
(Italy).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Investire Partecipazioni is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.