PALACE | Decision 2003435 – HOST SPAIN HOLDINGS, S.L. v. Palatial Leisure Limited

010000000 - 010999999, 010471357, 2017, 30, Date, Decision Type, H-company, HOST SPAIN HOLDINGS, S.L., Involved Parties, May-2017, OPPOSITION, P-company, P-trademark, PALACE, Palatial Leisure Limited, Trademark, Trademark number

OPPOSITION No B 2 003 435

 

Host Spain Holdings, S.L., C/Serrano 73, 28002 Madrid, Spain (opponent), represented by Clarke, Modet Y Cía. S.L., Rambla de Méndez Núñez, 12 – 1º Puerta 2 bis, 03002 Alicante, Spain (professional representative)

 

a g a i n s t

 

Palatial Leisure Limited, Church Plain, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR30 1PL, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by W.P. Thompson & Co., 138 Fetter Lane, London, London City of EC4A 1BT, United Kingdom (professional representative).

 

On 30/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

1.        Opposition No B 2 003 435 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 10 471 357, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 41. The opposition is based on Spanish trade mark registration No 2 640 753, covering the services in Classes 41 and 42. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

 

 

 

PALACE

 

 PALACE
 

Earlier trade mark

  

Contested sign

 

 

 

PROOF OF USE

 

In accordance with Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition), if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of publication of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

 

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition will be rejected.

 

After the request for an extension of the cooling-off period and further request for extension of time limits, the applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the Spanish trade mark on which the opposition is based.

 

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

 

On 13/01/2015, the opponent was given two months to file the requested proof of use. Following a suspension of proceedings request, this time limit, which was originally due to expire on 13/03/2015, was extended until 13/03/2017.

 

The opponent did not furnish any evidence concerning the use of the earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based. It did not argue that there were proper reasons for non-use either.

 

According to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, if the opposing party does not provide such proof before the time limit expires, the Office will reject the opposition.

 

Therefore, the opposition must be rejected pursuant to Article 42(2) EUTMR and Rule 22(2) EUTMIR.

 

 

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

 

 

Judit NÉMETH Janja FELC Francesca CANGERI SERRANO

 

 

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