OPPOSITION No B 2 783 085
Haribo GmbH & Co. KG, Hans-Riegel-Straße 1, 53129 Bonn, Germany (opponent), represented by Alexander Behler, 6, Route de Trèves EBBC Building E, 2633 Senningerberg, Luxembourg (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
Luis Manuel Bescos Nerin, Juncarral, 2, 22192 Tierz (Huesca), Spain (applicant), represented by Pilar Azagra Sáez, Las Damas 17, Pral. Centro, 50008 Zaragoza, Spain (professional representative).
On 04/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 783 085 is rejected in its entirety.
2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.
REASONS:
The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 15 232 192 of the figurative mark , namely against some of the goods in Class 30. The opposition is based on a German colour mark
registered under No 3 020 080 386 053. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
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.
In the present case the evidence filed by the opponent consists of an incomplete registration certificate and its translation. This evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the opponent’s earlier trade mark, because the certificate does not contain all the necessary elements.
First, there is no indication of the goods/services for which the mark is registered so that the scope of protection of the mark is unclear.
Second, the evidence does not contain a representation of the sign in colour. Since it was clear from the notice of opposition that the earlier mark concerns a colour mark, the opponent should have submitted further official documents to prove this claim (e.g. a copy of the publication of the mark in the bulletin in colour). However, the opponent merely submitted a copy of the registration certificate in black and white. This document neither contains other references to the colour of the mark that could prove the colour claimed in the notice of opposition.
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.
The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded.
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
| Benjamin Erik WINSNER | Adriana VAN ROODEN | Boyana NAYDENOVA |
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.