Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13February 2014— Marszałkowski v OHIM
(Case C‑177/13 P)
Appeal— Community trade mark— Regulation (EC) No40/94— Article8(1)(b)— Application for Community figurative mark with the word elements ‘Walichnowy’ and ‘Marko’— Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word MAR-KO— Relative ground for refusal— Likelihood of confusion
1.Appeals— Grounds— Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence— Inadmissibility— Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence— Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 40)
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— Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 55)
3.Appeals— Grounds— Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see para. 64)
Re:
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4February 2013 in Case T‑159/11 Marszałkowski v OHIM— Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘Mar-Ko’ in respect of goods in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement— Infringement of Article8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No207/2009 of 26February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L78, p.1) and Article48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court— Relative ground for refusal— Likelihood of confusion. |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
| The appeal is dismissed; |
2. |
| Marek Marszałkowski is ordered to pay the costs. |