CELEX: C2006/326/152
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-325/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Boston Scientific v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/74
            
         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Boston Scientific v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)
   (Case T-325/06)
   (2006/C 326/152)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Boston Scientific Ltd (Christ Church, Barbados) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006, served to the representatives of the plaintiff on 18 September 2006, in Case R 61/2006-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CAPIO’ for goods in class 10 — application No 2 554 434
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha
   
      Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks ‘CAPIOX’ and ‘CAPIOX PULSE’ for goods in class 10
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as Terumo failed to prove sufficient use of its trade mark, and of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council regulation as the conflicting trade marks are not likely to be confused.