CELEX: 62013CN0374
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-374/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-284/11: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

31.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 252/23
            
         Appeal brought on 1 July 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-284/11: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-374/13 P)
   2013/C 252/38
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, abogado)
   
      Otherparties 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 should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the decision of the General Court of 25 April 2013 in case T-284/11, granting in consequence the registration of the Community Trademark Application no7 112 113‘METROINVEST’ to distinguish services in class 36.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the other parties to bear the costs of the procedure.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant raises a single plea alleging the:
   
               —
            
            
               
                  
                     Infringement of the Art. 8.1 b) of Regulation no 207/2009
                  
                   (1)
               
            
         However this plea consists of four parts, which are the following:
   
               —
            
            
               Error on the part of the General Court and on the part of OHIM in assessing the comparison of the signs.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The General Court has not taken into account the applicable case law regarding the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Lack of coherence with other Office resolutions in which the same parts, and related trademarks are involved.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Pacific coexistence between other trademarks, which include the word METRO in different classes, and also in class 36.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1