CELEX: 62013TN0664
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-664/13: Action brought on 10 December 2013 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)

14.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/35
            
         Action brought on 10 December 2013 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)
   (Case T-664/13)
   2014/C 112/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Malaga, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2013 given in Case R 347/2013-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 10 114 081
   
      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 No 9 062 902 for the figurative mark in red and white containing the verbal element ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 31 and 35
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.