Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)
(Case T‑284/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark METROINVEST — Earlier national figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Principle of non-discrimination — Right to a fair hearing
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 23-25)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36, 49-52)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark METROINVEST and figurative mark METRO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 35, 41, 42, 46, 56-59)
5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — Right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 61 to 64) (see para. 62)
6. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 63, 64)
7. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (see para. 74)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Case R 954/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs. |