OPPOSITION No B 2 462 052
Equium, S.L.N.E., Brusi, 102, Bajos 1ª, 08006 Barcelona, Spain (opponent)
a g a i n s t
Equiom (Isle of Man) Limited, Jubilee Buildings, Victoria Street, Douglas 1 2SH, Isle of Man (applicant), represented by Wildbore & Gibbons LLP, Sycamore House 5 Sycamore Street, London EC1Y 0SG, United Kingdom (professional representative).
On 22/09/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 462 052 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 in Class 35 of European Union trade mark application No 13 480 711 ‘EQUIOM’. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 9 438 805. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
CEASING OF EXISTENCE OF THE EARLIER EUTM No 9 438 805
According to Article 76(1) EUTMR, in proceedings before it the Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office shall be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.
According to Article 41(1)(a) EUTMR, within a period of three months following the publication of an EU trade mark application, notice of opposition to registration of the trade mark may be given on the grounds that it may not be registered under Article 8:
- by the proprietors of earlier trade marks referred to in Article 8(2) as well as licensees authorised by the proprietors of those trade marks, in respect of Article 8(1) and 8(5);
[…].
Further, according to Article 8(2) EUTMR, ‘earlier trade marks’ means:
(i) trade marks with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application of the contested mark, taking into account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those marks;
(ii) applications for a trade mark referred to in Article 8(2)(a) EUTMR, subject to their registration;
(iii) trade marks which are well known in a Member State.
Therefore, the legal basis of the opposition requires the existence and validity of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR.
Furthermore, if in the course of the proceedings, the earlier right ceases to exist (for instance because it has been declared invalid or it has not been renewed), the final decision cannot be based on it. The opposition may only be upheld with respect to an earlier right which is valid at the moment when the decision is taken. Since the European Union trade mark application and the earlier right which has ceased to have effect cannot coexist anymore, the opposition cannot be upheld to this extent (13/09/2006, T-191/04, Metro, EU: T: 2006:254, § 33 & 36).
On 17/01/2015, the opponent filed a notice of opposition claiming as the basis of the opposition European Union trade mark registration No 9 438 805. The opposition was based on all the services in Class 35, 36 and 43 covered by this earlier mark.
By decision rendered in Cancellation proceedings No 12482C of 29/11/2016, the Cancellation Division revoked the proprietor’s rights on EUTM No 9 438 805 for all services for which it was registered. The decision was not appealed and is therefore final.
As it is apparent from the facts exposed above, the earlier mark does no longer exist and, consequently, cannot constitute a valid trade mark on which the opposition can be based within the meaning of Article 41(1)(a)EUTMR and Article 8(2) EUTMR.
Therefore, the present opposition does not have a legal basis and, accordingly, does not comply with the requirements of the abovementioned legal provisions.
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
|
Michal KRUK |
Ana MUÑIZ RODRIGUEZ |
Loreto URRACA LUQUE |
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.