- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-173/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0173
62008TN0173
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
5.7.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 171/43
(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.