OPPOSITION No B 2 770 116

Tapizados Doñana, S. L., Zulema, S/N Pol. IND. Las Baderas, 41840 Sevilla, Spain (opponent), represented by Álvaro Herrera Dávila, Calle Silva, 2 – 1º 1, 28013 Madrid

Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Subleeme SA, Avenue Louise 235, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium (applicant), represented by Pronovem Marks Société Anonyme, avenue Josse Goffin 158, 1082 Bruxelles, Belgium (professional representative).

On 05/04/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 770 116 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the services of European Union trade mark application No 15 628 654, namely against all the services in Classes 38 and 45. The opposition is based on Spanish trade mark registration No 2 641 360 registered for services in Classes 38 and 45. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

SIT GRUPO TAPIZADOS
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

ADMISSIBILITY

According to Rule 15(3)(a) EUTMIR, the notice of opposition may contain an indication of the goods and services against which the opposition is directed; in the absence of such an indication the opposition will be considered to be directed against all the goods and services of the contested European Union trade mark application.

According to Article 119(5) and (6) EUTMR, this indication must be provided in the language of the opposition proceedings, namely English.

In the present case, the services on which the opposition is based have not been provided in the language of the opposition proceedings.

According to Rule 17(4) EUTMIR, if the notice of opposition does not comply with the provisions of Rule 15 EUTMIR (other than those referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 17 EUTMIR), the Office will inform the opponent accordingly and invite him to remedy the deficiencies noted within a period of two months. If the deficiencies are not remedied before this time limit expires, the Office will reject the opposition as inadmissible.

The Office informed the opponent of the deficiency in its notification dated 15/11/2016. The opponent was set a time limit of two months, until 15/01/2017, to remedy the deficiency namely to provide the services on which the opposition is based in the language of the opposition proceedings.

The opponent did not reply within the prescribed time limit.

The opposition must therefore, be rejected as inadmissible.

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

Francesca DINU

Cristina CRESPO MOLTO

Janja FELC

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.