CANCELLATION No 14403 C (REVOCATION)
Fashion TV B rand Holdings C.V., Keizersgracht 62, 1015 CS Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (applicant)
a g a i n s t
Provo Craft & Novelty, Inc., 10855 South River Front Parkway, Suite 400, South Jordan, UT 84095, United States of America, (EUTM proprietor), represented by Dr. Pfeifer, Dr. Keckeis, Dr. Fiel, Dr. Scheidbach OEG, Drevesstr. 2, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria, (professional representative).
On 20/06/2017, the Cancellation Division takes the following
1. The application for revocation is upheld.
2. The EUTM proprietor’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 6 979 827 are revoked in their entirety as from 30/01/2017.
3. The EUTM proprietor bears the costs, fixed at EUR 630.
The applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark No 6 979 827 ‘GOBE’ (word mark) (the EUTM). The request is directed against all the goods covered by the EUTM, namely:
Class 7: Power operated tools, namely, drills, saws, embossers, staplers, die cutters, paint spray guns, air brushes for applying paint.
Class 8: Hand tools, namely hammers, screwdrivers, scissors, tweezers, wrenches, pliers, files, sanders, socket sets, knives, hand held cutting tools and saws.
Class 9: Batteries, battery chargers, integrated battery backup systems, apparatus for converting electronic radiation to electrical energy, namely, photovoltaic solar modules, solar batteries, portable battery packs.
Class 16: Glue for stationery or household purposes, adhesive tapes for stationery or household purposes, paper hole punches, paper, paper clips, paper staplers, and staples.
The applicant invoked Article 51(1)(a) EUTMR.
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
According to Article 51(1)(a) EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of the European Union trade mark will be revoked on application to the Office, if, within a continuous period of five years, the trade mark has not been put to genuine use in the Union for the goods or services for which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use.
In revocation proceedings based on the grounds of non-use, the burden of proof lies with the EUTM proprietor as the applicant cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, namely that the mark has not been used during a continuous period of five years. Therefore, it is the EUTM proprietor who must prove genuine use within the European Union or submit proper reasons for non-use.
In the present case the EUTM was registered on 21/04/2009. The revocation request was filed on 30/01/2017. Therefore, the EUTM had been registered for more than five years at the date of the filing of the request.
On 01/02/2017 the Cancellation Division duly notified the EUTM proprietor of the application for revocation and gave it a time limit of three months to submit evidence of use of the EUTM for all the goods for which it is registered.
The EUTM proprietor did not submit any observations or evidence of use in reply to the application for revocation within the time limit.
According to Rule 40(5) EUTMIR, if the proprietor of the European Union trade mark does not provide proof of genuine use of the contested mark within the time limit set by the Office, the European Union trade mark will be revoked.
In the absence of any reply from the EUTM proprietor, there is neither any evidence that the EUTM has been genuinely used in the European Union for any of the goods for which it is registered nor any indications of proper reasons for non-use.
Pursuant to Article 55(1) EUTMR, the EUTM must be deemed not to have had, as from the date of the application for revocation, the effects specified in the EUTMR, to the extent that the proprietor’s rights have been revoked.
Consequently, the EUTM proprietor’s rights must be revoked in their entirety and deemed not to have had any effects as from 30/01/2017.
According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in cancellation proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.
Since the EUTM proprietor is the losing party, it must bear the cancellation fee as well as the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of these proceedings.
According to Rule 94(3) and (6) EUTMIR and Rule 94(7)(d)(iii) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the applicant are the cancellation fee and the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein. In the present case the applicant did not appoint a representative within the meaning of Article 93 EUTMR and, therefore, did not incur representation costs.
The Cancellation Division
María INFANTE SECO DE HERRERA
Isabel ARRANZ ESTAUN
Carmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
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 Cancellation Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month of the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 has been paid (Annex 1 A(33) EUTMR).