ASCOT POLO TEAM | Decision 2559402 – ASCOT RACECOURSE LIMITED v. Luisa Milagros Cartagena Carbonero

013000000 - 013999999, 013902598, 2017, 31, A-company, A-trademark, ASCOT POLO TEAM, ASCOT RACECOURSE LIMITED, C-company, Cartagena Carbonero, Luisa Milagros, Date, Decision Type, Involved Parties, May-2017, OPPOSITION, Trademark, Trademark number

OPPOSITION No B 2 559 402

 

Ascot Racecourse Limited, Ascot Racecourse, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7JX, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by Nucleus Ip Limited, 10 St. Bride Street, London  EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom (professional representative)

 

a g a i n s t

 

Luisa Milagros Cartagena Carbonero, C/ Mesón 10, 03340 Albatera, Spain (applicant), represented by Clara Eugenia Martin Alvarez, Vicente Blasco Ibañez, 43 entlo. Drcha., 03201 Elche (Alicante), Spain (professional representative).

 

On 31/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

1.        Opposition No B 2 559 402 is rejected in its entirety.

 

2.        The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.

 

 

REASONS:

 

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 13 902 598 ‘ASCOT POLO TEAM’, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35. However, as a consequence of a decision on a parallel opposition, the contested mark has been partially rejected, and therefore the opposition will be against all the above mentioned goods and services, with the exception of goods in Class 25. The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 200 975 .
  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 235 561B for the word mark ‘ROYAL ASCOT RACING CLUB’.
  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 263 430B for the word mark ‘Royal Ascot Golf Club’.
  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 055 047A for the word mark ‘ROYAL ASCOT’.

 

  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 055 047B for the word mark ‘ROYAL ASCOT’.
  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 055 046A for the word mark ‘ASCOT RACECOURSE’.
  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 055 051B for the figurative mark .

 

  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 055 051A for the figurative mark .
  • United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 055 046B for the word mark ‘ASCOT RACECOURSE’.
  • United Kingdom and European Union non-registered trade marks ‘ROYAL ASCOT’, ‘ASCOT’.

 

In relation to the earlier rights, the opponent invoked Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) EUTMR.

 

 

PRELIMINARY REMARK

 

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of all the aforementioned UK trade mark registrations on which the opposition is based.

 

The request was submitted in due time and is admissible as the earlier trade marks were registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

 

On 17/03/2016, according to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, the Office gave the opponent until 22/05/2016 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade marks, time limit that was extended until 22/07/2016.

 

On 22/07/2016, within the time limit, the opponent informed the Office of the withdrawal of his opposition based upon Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) EUTMR. As a consequence, the Office will only decide the Article 8(4) EUTMR claim.

 

 

NON-REGISTERED MARK OR ANOTHER SIGN USED IN THE COURSE OF TRADE – ARTICLE 8(4) EUTMR

 

The opposition is based on the non-registered trade marks ‘ROYAL ASCOT’ and ‘ASCOT’ which, according to the notice of opposition, are used in the course of trade in the European Union and in the United Kingdom.

 

Given that non-registered trade marks are not protected at European Union level, the unregistered rights invoked in this respect are not an eligible basis for opposition.

 

The examination of the opposition will continue on the basis of the non-registered trade marks ‘ROYAL ASCOT’ and ‘ASCOT’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom.

 

According to Article 8(4) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or of another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance, the trade mark applied for will not be registered where and to the extent that, pursuant to the Union legislation or the law of the Member State governing that sign:

 

(a)        rights to that sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the European Union trade mark, or the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the European Union trade mark;

 

(b)        that sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark.

 

Therefore, the grounds of refusal of Article 8(4) EUTMR are subject to the following requirements:

 

  • the earlier sign must have been used in the course of trade of more than local significance prior to the filing of the contested trade mark;

 

  • pursuant to the law governing it, prior to the filing of the contested trade mark, the opponent acquired rights to the sign on which the opposition is based, including the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark;

 

  • the conditions under which the use of a subsequent trade mark may be prohibited are fulfilled in respect of the contested trade mark.

 

These conditions are cumulative. Therefore, where a sign does not satisfy one of those conditions, the opposition based on a non-registered trade mark or other signs used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR cannot succeed.

 

 

  1. The right under the applicable law

 

According to Article 76(1) EUTMR, the Office will examine the facts of its own motion in proceedings before it; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office will restrict this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and the relief sought.

 

According to Rule 19(2)(d) EUTMIR, if the opposition is based on an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opposing party must provide evidence of its acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection.

 

Therefore, the onus is on the opponent to submit all the information necessary for the decision, including identifying the applicable law and providing all the necessary information for its sound application. According to case-law, it is up to the opponent ‘… to provide OHIM not only with particulars showing that he satisfies the necessary conditions, in accordance with the national law of which he is seeking application … but also particulars establishing the content of that law’ (05/07/2011, C-263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452, § 50). The evidence to be submitted must allow the Opposition Division to determine safely that a particular right is provided for under the law in question, as well as the conditions for acquisition of that right. The evidence must further clarify whether the holder of the right is entitled to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark, as well as the conditions under which the right may prevail and be enforced vis-à-vis a subsequent trade mark.

 

As regards national law, the opponent must cite the provisions of the applicable law on the conditions governing acquisition of rights and on the scope of protection of the right. The opponent must provide a reference to the relevant legal provision (article number, and the number and title of the law) and the content (text) of the legal provision either as part of its submission or by highlighting it in a publication attached to the submission (e.g. excerpts from an official journal, a legal commentary or a court decision). As the opponent is required to prove the content of the applicable law, it must provide the applicable law in the original language. If that language is not the language of the proceedings, the opponent must also provide a complete translation of the legal provisions invoked in accordance with the standard rules of substantiation.

 

Furthermore, the opponent must submit appropriate evidence of fulfilment of the conditions of acquisition and of the scope of protection of the right invoked, as well as evidence that the conditions of protection vis-à-vis the contested mark have actually been met. In particular, it must put forward a cogent line of argument as to why use of the contested mark would be successfully prevented under the applicable law.

 

In the present case, the opponent did not submit any information on due time on the legal protection granted to the type of trade sign invoked by the opponent, namely non registered trademarks in the course of trade in the United Kingdom. The opponent did not submit any information on the possible content of the rights invoked or the conditions to be fulfilled for the opponent to be able to prohibit the use of the contested trade mark under the laws in each of the Member States mentioned by the opponent. The Opposition Division notes that further evidence was presented on 22/07/2016. However, since it was submitted after the relevant date (i.e. 18/02/2016), this evidence cannot be taken account. The opponent bears the burden of proving the relevant facts under national law within the time limits given by the Office.

 

Therefore, it follows from the above the opposition is not well founded under Article 8(4) EUTMR.

 

 

COSTS

 

According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

 

Since the opponent is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of these proceedings.

 

According to Rule 94(3) and Rule 94(7)(d)(ii) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the applicant are the costs of representation which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

 

 

 

 

The Opposition Division

 

 

Jose Antonio GARRIDO ORTAOLA Cristina CRESPO MOLTO Claudia MARTINI

 

 

According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.

 

The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Opposition Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month from the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.

 

Leave Comment