Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[Keywords](#IX)
  
[Subject of the case](#I2)
  
[Operative part](#DI)

## Keywords

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-32)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

3. 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks METRO and GRUPOMETROPOLIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38, 50, 51)

4. 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 46)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — No right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 61 to 64) (see para. 54)

## Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 2440/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

## Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL to pay the costs.

[Top](#document1)

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 —
Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)

(Case T-197/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark METRO — Earlier Community figurative mark GRUPOMETROPOLIS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing — Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

| 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-32) |

| 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33) |

| 3. | 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks METRO and GRUPOMETROPOLIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38, 50, 51) |

| 4. | 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 46) |

| 5. | Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — No right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 61 to 64) (see para. 54) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 2440/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document2)