Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/51 |

---

Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)

(Case T-204/06)

(2006/C 224/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE (Tavros, Greece) (represented by: P. Kanellopoulos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG (Zürich, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the contested decision rendered by the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM in its ruling No R0540/2005-2 dated June 8, 2006; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | dismiss the opposition No B 562 423 brought by Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG against the registration of the Community Trade mark ‘MILKO ΔEΛTA with design’ No 2 474 674; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order that the Community Trade mark ‘MILKO ΔEΛTA with design’ No 2 474 674 of the applicant be accepted; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘milko ΔΕΛΤΑ’ for goods in class 30 (milk with cocoa) — application No 2 474 674

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG

Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks ‘MILKA’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the obvious and large differences of the two marks are sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion. According to the applicant, the two conflicting trade marks create overall a very different visual, phonetic and conceptual impression, especially when taking the second word ‘ΔEΛTA’ into consideration.

---

[Top](#document1)