Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/31 |

---

Action brought on 21 February 2012 — Lilleborg v OHIM — Hardford (Pierre Robert)

(Case T-85/12)

2012/C 118/52

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lilleborg AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Ullberg and M. Plogell, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hardford AB (Limhamn, Sweden)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 December 2011 in case R 2462/2010-1, and consequently order OHIM to evaluate the proof of existence, validity and scope of the earlier mark that the applicant has submitted; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Or, alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal by a decision of its own and refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 8541849 ‘Pierre Robert’; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pierre Robert’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 8541849

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registration No 164251 of the word mark ‘PIERRE ROBERT’, for goods in class 3

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76, 8 and 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) has neglected its right to examine the facts of its own motion, and take into consideration facts that are apparently likely to affect the outcome of the opposition; (ii) erred in law when it did not consider that ‘PIERRE ROBERT’ is a well known mark; (iii) failed when not considering the evidence, Annex 1, which was submitted in connection with the filing of the opposition; and (iv) failed when not accepting the certificate from the Swedish Patent and Registration Office filed before the decision of the opposition division.

---

[Top](#document1)