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
(Case T-697/14)
2014/C 409/80
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Associated Newspapers Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2014 in Case R 606/2013-5, in so far as it annulled the Opposition Division’s decision of 4 March 2013 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 7 79 116‘METRO’ and referred the case back to the Opposition Division for examination and a decision on the case;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark including the word element METRO for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 79 116
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘METRO’
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the case was referred back to the Opposition Division
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94