CELEX: 62008TN0331
Language: en
Date: 2008-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-331/08: Action brought on 11 August 2008 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)

11.10.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 260/16
            
         Action brought on 11 August 2008 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)
   (Case T-331/08)
   (2008/C 260/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL (Madrid, Spain)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2008 in case R 1679/2007-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Solfrutta’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 687 722 of the word mark ‘FRUTISOL’ for goods in class 32; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 018 327 of the word mark ‘FRUTISOL’ for goods in class 32
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially
   
      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 Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the alleged weak distinctiveness of the earlier trade marks. Likewise, when assessing only the similarity of the single elements of the trade marks concerned, the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently take into account that the most relevant aspect in the framework of such assessment is the overall impression conveyed by the trade marks concerned.