CELEX: C2006/143/64
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-111/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)

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)