CELEX: 62007TN0451
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-451/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)

9.2.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 37/32
            
         Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
   (Case T-451/07)
   (2008/C 37/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: WellBiz Verein, WellBiz Association (Eschen, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Schnetzer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelhein, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 2 October 2007 in Case R 1575/2006-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               To reject Opposition No B 809 394 of the opponent of 9 March 2005;
            
         
               —
            
            
               To order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs of the present case and also those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WELLBIZ’ in respect of services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 3 844 479).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘WILD.BIZ’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2 225 175), the opposition being based on some of the services in Class 41.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to all the contested services in Class 41.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the marks in question differ phonetically, figuratively and conceptually, and the mark cited in opposition does not enjoy a particularly high degree of recognition and does not therefore possess a high level of distinctiveness.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).