Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Marszałkowski v OHIM

(Case C‑177/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community figurative mark with the word elements ‘Walichnowy’ and ‘Marko’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word MAR-KO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion’

1. 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. 40)

2. 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 — Criteria for assessment — Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 55)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see para. 64)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2013 in Case T‑159/11 Marszałkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘Mar-Ko’ in respect of goods in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Marek Marszałkowski is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Marszałkowski v OHIM

(Case C‑177/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community figurative mark with the word elements ‘Walichnowy’ and ‘Marko’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word MAR-KO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion’

1. 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. 40)

2. 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 — Criteria for assessment — Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 55)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see para. 64)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2013 in Case T‑159/11 Marszałkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘Mar-Ko’ in respect of goods in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The appeal is dismissed;