EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

(Case T-86/12)

2012/C 118/53

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Robert Group 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 2463/2010-1, 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 166274 of the figurative mark ‘Pierre Robert’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 25

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.