CELEX: C2007/056/67
Language: en
Date: 2007-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-10/07: Action brought on 8 January 2007 — FVB v OHIM — FVD (FVB)

10.3.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 56/35
            
         Action brought on 8 January 2007 — FVB v OHIM — FVD (FVB)
   (Case T-10/07)
   (2007/C 56/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: P. Koehler, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in appeal case R 1343/2005-4 of 6 November 2006 so as to annul the decision of 12 September 2005 on opposition No B 549 362 of the Finanz- und Versorgungsdienstgesellschaft für Finanzberatung und Versorgemanagement mbH against application No 2 126 175 and to reject the opposition;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FVB’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 (Application No 2 126 175).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘FVD’ for services in Class 36, the opposition being brought against the registration in Class 36.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial rejection of the application.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).