Action brought on 22 December 2008 - Visonic v OHIM - Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)

(Case T-569/08)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Visonic Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Beschorner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sedea Electronique SA (Seclin, France)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in joined cases R 946/2007-2 and R 1151/2007-2;

Declare Community trade mark No 1 562 982 "VISIONIC" invalid in respect of all the goods concerned;

Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

Set a date for an oral hearing in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark "VISIONIC" for goods in class 9

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partly upheld the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal in case R 946/2007-2; Annulled the contested decision rejecting the cancellation request; Dismissed the appeal in case R 1151/2007-2.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(3), 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94, as well as of general principles of trade mark law as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that the applicant gave its consent to the registration of the Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity and, as a result, failed to examine whether a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned exists.

____________