Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/20 |

---

Action brought on 24 January 2013 — Pedro Group/OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)

(Case T-38/13)

2013/C 101/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: B. Brandreth, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cortefiel, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul partially the Fourth Board of Appeal’s Decision of 26 November 2012 (Case R 0271/2011-4): Annulment of that part of the Decision that annulled part of the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17 December 2010 and rejected the Applicant’s CTM application for certain goods in class 25; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order that the respondent pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PEDRO’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 7 541 857

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: Community trade mark registration No 1 252 899 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Pedro del Hierro’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 35, and 42 and the International registration No 864 740 claimed to have effect in Bulgaria, Spain and Romania for the figurative mark in black and white ‘Pedro del Hierro’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision as far as it rejected the opposition for goods in class 25, rejected the application for these goods and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

[Top](#document1)