Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/56 |

---

Action brought on 25 September 2009 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)

(Case T-373/09)

2009/C 282/105

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Emilio Pucci International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of 18 June 2009 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Joined Cases 770/2008-2 and 826/2008-2 in so far as, by partially upholding the applicant and the opponent's applications, it rejects the Community mark 3 679 591 with respect to classes 3, 18, 24, 25 and for ‘articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool’ in class 21; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | allow registration of Community mark No 3 679 591‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ in its entirety; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the party or parties opposing this application to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ (Application No 3 679 594) in handwritten letters for goods and services in classes 1 and 45.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: EMILIO PUCCI INTERNATIONAL B.V.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ No 203570 (classes 18 and 24), Italian word marks No 769250 (Classes 3, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 33) and No 274991 (classes 9, 12, 18, 20, 26, 27 and 34) and Italian word mark No 275894 (classes 14, 18, 24 and 25).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals brought by the applicant and the opponent partially upheld.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

[Top](#document1)