CELEX: 62008TN0173
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-173/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)

5.7.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/43
            
         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)
   (Case T-173/08)
   (2008/C 171/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angeles, United States)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2008 in case R 0989/2005-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM/the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEDTEC’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41 — application No 2 885 853
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: The national word trade mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the international word trade mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all goods and services
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal was incorrect to allow the appeal and to state that there is no similarity between the trade marks; infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal rendered a decision on facts which were not subject to appeal.