CELEX: 62009TN0525
Language: en
Date: 2009-12-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-525/09: Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

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.