I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(2008/C 260/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
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)
—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.
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.