Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/31 |

---

Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-525/09)

2010/C 80/52

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 1315/2006-1, as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009); and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRONIA’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application;

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, rejected the opposition and, as a result, allowed the Community trade mark application to proceed in respect of all goods and services

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

---

[Top](#document1)