# C_2013344EN.01004501.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/45

---

Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-468/13 P)

2013/C 344/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (represented by: K. Szamosi, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12 and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market No. R 2532/2011-2 of 30 May 2012 insofar as the appeal of the Intervener is dismissed and the rejection of the Intervener’s opposition is upheld; or alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12 and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market No. R 2532/2011-2 of 30 May 2012 insofar as the appeal of the Intervener is dismissed and the rejection of the Intervener’s opposition is upheld; or alternatively

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment; and

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings of the first instance and appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings of the first instance and appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that

| — | The General Court’s findings regarding the inadmissibility of the Appellant’s arguments submitted before OHIM are on the one hand irrelevant, and, on the other hand, unjustified and incorrect; therefore the General Court infringed Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court’s findings regarding the inadmissibility of the Appellant’s arguments submitted before OHIM are on the one hand irrelevant, and, on the other hand, unjustified and incorrect; therefore the General Court infringed Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

| — | There was no need and no legal grounds for disregarding the evidence submitted by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court, and, therefore, the General Court infringed Article 65(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 135 (4) of the Rules of Procedure when it considered the Appellant’s evidence to be inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

There was no need and no legal grounds for disregarding the evidence submitted by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court, and, therefore, the General Court infringed Article 65(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 135 (4) of the Rules of Procedure when it considered the Appellant’s evidence to be inadmissible.

1

| — | The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation when establishing the relevant public and its relevance in assessing the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation when establishing the relevant public and its relevance in assessing the likelihood of confusion.

| — | The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation and settled case-law when it found that the services in question are considered to be identical. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation and settled case-law when it found that the services in question are considered to be identical.

| — | The General Court did not make a clear and separate assessment of the aspects of visual, aural (phonetic) and conceptual similarity, and did not examine the relevant circumstances of the case in the light of this assessment, and therefore, the General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court did not make a clear and separate assessment of the aspects of visual, aural (phonetic) and conceptual similarity, and did not examine the relevant circumstances of the case in the light of this assessment, and therefore, the General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation.

| — | The General Court infringed the law when it found that the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Intervener’s earlier trademarks and the Appellant’s Community trade mark application. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the law when it found that the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Intervener’s earlier trademarks and the Appellant’s Community trade mark application.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ L 78, p.1

---