CELEX: C2006/178/65
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-149/06: Action brought on  17 May 2006  — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI)

29.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/35
            
         Action brought on 17 May 2006 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI)
   (Case T-149/06)
   (2006/C 178/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Castellani SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: A. Di Maso, M. R. Di Maso, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markant Handels und Service GmbH (Offemburg, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 February 2006 in Case R 449/2005-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order 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 ‘CASTELLANI’ for goods in class 33 (alcoholic beverages except beer, liqueur, sparkling wine and Champagne) — application No 2 387 272
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MARKANT Handels- und Service GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited: The national word marks ‘CASTELLUM’ for goods in class 33 (wines, with the exception of sparkling wine) and ‘CASTELLUCA’ for goods in class 33 (wines)
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the application
   
      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting marks are different and the applicant's mark can not cause confusion for German consumers.