I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
2013/C 344/103
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)
—Declare the action admissible and well-founded, and, as a consequence;
—Annul in part the contested decision, in that it refused to declare the invalidity of the Community trade mark at issue based on the marks Nos 02 3 167 081, No 02 3 167 084 and No 794 040, and the other unregistered signs;
—Uphold the contested decision, in that it declared the invalidity in part of mark No 3 590 981 on the basis of the earlier mark No 02 3 143 685;
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘METROPOL’ for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 590 981
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National word mark ‘METROPOLE’ and national and international figurative marks ‘METROPOLE gestion’ for the services in Class 36
Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application is rejected in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.