CELEX: 62013TB0431
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-431/13: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL) (Community trade mark — Word mark METROPOL — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — No need to adjudicate)

27.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/49
            
         Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)
   (Case T-431/13) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Word mark METROPOL - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 138/65)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2013 (Cases affaires R 723/2012-2 and R 845/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Métropole Gestion and Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd.
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Métropole Gestion and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall each bear their own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.