Action brought on 8 July 2008 - Canon Communications v OHIM - Messe Düsseldorf (MEDTEC)

(Case T-262/08)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angles, United States) (represented by: M. Mak, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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 30 April 2008 in case R 817/2005-1; and

Order the defendant / 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 applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "MEDTEC" for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41

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: German trade mark registration No 39 975 563 of the word mark "Metec" for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41; international trade mark registration No 752 637 of the word mark "Metec" for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The decision of the Board of Appeal should be annulled on the ground that there is a considerable chance that the national trade marks cited in the opposition proceedings are void; alternatively, infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no similarity between the services concerned and therefore no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks, or, in the alternative, that the services concerned are not sufficiently similar to conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion. In the alternative, it should be established that the Board of Appeal erred in not considering the fact that the public concerned is highly specialised and will therefore not confuse the conflicting trade marks. Finally, as an alternative plea in law, it should be established that the Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the fact that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal tolerated the use of the Community trade mark concerned by the applicant for more than five years.

____________