OPPOSITION No B 2 820 242

Société d'Exploitation d'un Service d'Information, 1 place du Spectacle, 92130 Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France (opponent), represented by Brandstorming,  11 rue Lincoln, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Cheetah Mobile Inc., PO Box 309, Ugland House, Grand Cayman 1 1104, Cayman Islands (applicant), represented by Greenberg Traurig Llp, Leidseplein 29, 1017 PS Amsterdam, Netherlands (professional representative).

On 06/03/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 820 242 is rejected as inadmissible.

2.        The opposition fee will not be refunded.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 774 078, namely against all the goods in Class 9. The opposition is based on French trade mark registration No 4 308 347 in Classes 9 and 38. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

	CM NEWS
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

ADMISSIBILITY

According to Article 8(2)(a) EUTMR, earlier trade marks within the meaning of Article 8(1) EUTMR are those trade marks with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the European Union trade mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those trade marks.

According to Article 41(1)(a) EUTMR, notice of opposition to registration of the trade mark may be given on the grounds that it may not be registered under Article 8 EUTMR by the proprietors of earlier trade marks referred to in Article 8(2) EUTMR, in respect of Article 8(1) and (5) EUTMR.

On 16/12/2016, the opponent filed a notice of opposition against the European Union trade mark application No 15 774 078. The opposition is based on the French trade mark registration No 4 308 347 which was filed on 18/10/2016. No priority was claimed in the present case. However, the contested application was filed on 24/08/2016.

Consequently, the trade mark on which the opposition is based is not an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR.

The Office informed the opponent of the deficiency in its notification dated 19/12/2016. The opponent was set a time limit of two months, until 19/02/2016, to submit any comments on the matter.

The opponent did not reply within the prescribed time limit.

The opposition must therefore, be rejected as inadmissible.

Please note that the opposition fee will not be refunded. In accordance with Rule 18(5) EUTMIR, the Office only refunds the opposition fee in view of a withdrawal and/or restriction of the trade mark during the cooling-off period.

The Opposition Division

Alexandra APOSTOLAKIS

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.