Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM

(Case C‑374/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of the word mark METROINVEST — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark and applicant for the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘METRO’, in the colours blue and yellow — Refusal of registration’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 39)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the Courts of the European Union — Criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see para. 44)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 50, 51)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 in Case T‑284/11 Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHMI - MIP Metro (METROINVEST), by which the General Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘METROINVEST’ for services in Class 36 for the annulment of Decision R 954/2010-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 17 March 2011, which dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark, in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark and applicant for a Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘METRO’, in the colours blue and yellow, for goods and services in Classes 1 to 45 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones SL is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM

(Case C‑374/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of the word mark METROINVEST — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark and applicant for the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘METRO’, in the colours blue and yellow — Refusal of registration’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 39)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the Courts of the European Union — Criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see para. 44)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 50, 51)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 in Case T‑284/11 Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHMI - MIP Metro (METROINVEST), by which the General Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘METROINVEST’ for services in Class 36 for the annulment of Decision R 954/2010-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 17 March 2011, which dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark, in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark and applicant for a Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘METRO’, in the colours blue and yellow, for goods and services in Classes 1 to 45 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.