OPPOSITION No B 2 414 616

Grays of Cambridge (International) Limited, Station Road, Robertsbridge, East Sussex TN32 5DH, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by D Young & Co LLP, 120 Holborn, London  EC1N 2DY, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

European Professional Club Rugby EPCR, c/o Me Studer, 1 passage Max-Meuron,  2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland (applicant), represented by Keltie LLP, No. 1 London Bridge, London  SE1 9BA, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 13/04/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 414 616 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 12 898 292, namely all the goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41. The opposition is based on United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 004 640, French trade mark registration No 93 475 181, Italian trade mark registration No 1 552 131 and Spanish trade mark registration No M1 769 369, as well as on 20 non-registered trade marks used in the course of trade in the EU and all the EU Member States. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b), 8(5) and 8(4) EUTMR.

All the earlier marks, both registered and non-registered, are figurative, consisting of one of the following devices (or sets of devices): 1)                    2)   3)             4)
Earlier trade marks	Contested sign

SUBSTANTIATION

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

It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.

According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR, the Office will give the opposing party the opportunity to present the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.

According to Rule 19(2) EUTMIR, within the period referred to above, the opposing party must also file proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the opposition.

In particular, if the opposition is based on a registered trade mark which is not a European Union trade mark, the opposing party must provide a copy of the relevant registration certificate and, as the case may be, of the latest renewal certificate, showing that the term of protection of the trade mark extends beyond the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 and any extension thereof, or equivalent documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR.

Pursuant 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 of that right.

In the present case the notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence as regards the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier trade marks on which the opposition is based.

On 30/09/2014, the opponent was given two months, commencing after the ending of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned material. This letter was accompanied by specific instructions to prove the existence, ownership and validity of the earlier rights and information that the opposition will be rejected when the evidence substantiating the earlier marks is not filed within the time limit (Rule 20(1) EUTMIR). After an extension, this time limit expired on 12/02/2017.

The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the substantiation of any of the invoked rights.

According to Rule 20(1) EUTMIR, if until expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19(1) EUTMIR the opposing party has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as its entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.

Since the opponent has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of any of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based, the opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded in its entirety.

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

Ferenc GAZDA

Michaela SIMANDLOVA

Marianna KONDÁS

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.