EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-451/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0451

62007TN0451

January 1, 2007
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

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

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/32

(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).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia