Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/11 |

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-509/13 P)

2013/C 336/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 and, consequently, reject the application to register Community figurative mark No 7585045 METRO for services in Class 36; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the other parties to the proceedings to bear the costs of the proceedings. |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant essentially raises three grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court referred to above.

First, the appellant accuses the General Court of having infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Community trade mark Regulation No 207/2009,[(1)](#ntr1-C_2013336EN.01001101-E0001) as a result of a misinterpretation of the services covered by the mark in conflict and a failure to assess the marks at issue as a whole.

Second, the General Court has delivered contradictory judgments in cases involving the same parties and in which similar marks were at issue. The judgment in Case T-284/11, which is very closely related to the present case, was not taken into account even though it was submitted in the proceedings in good time and in accordance with the procedure.

Third, the appellant submits that there were errors in the proceedings before the General Court which adversely affected its interests and which deprived it repeatedly of legal protection. In particular, the oral proceedings were carried out without the applicant, even though it had applied for them to be postponed for an important reason, and did so in accordance with the relevant procedure.

---

[Top](#document1)