L | Decision 2629379

OPPOSITION No B 2 629 379

HS Corporation, 410-1 Samrak-Dong, Sasang-Ku, Pusan, South Korea (opponent), represented by J. Lopez Patentes y Marcas, S.L., C/. Paz, nº 14-2º-3ª, 46003 Valencia, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Lonsdale Sports Limited, Unit A, Brook Park East, Shirebrook, Nottinghamshire NG20 8RY, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by Lane IP Limited, 2 Throgmorton Avenue, London EC2N 2DG, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 14/03/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following


1.        Opposition No B 2 629 379 is rejected in its entirety.

2.        The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.


The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods of European Union trade mark application No 14 345 581 for the figurative mark http://prodfnaefi:8071/FileNetImageFacade/viewimage?imageId=120069347&key=b224d96e0a840803398a1cf1e713ca61, namely against all the goods in Classes 18 and 25. The opposition is based on Spanish trade mark registration No 2 807 210 for the figurative mark . The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.


In accordance with Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition), if the applicant so requests, the opponent shall furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of publication of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition shall be rejected.

In the present case the contested trade mark was published on 22/09/2015.

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade mark on which the opposition is based, namely Spanish trade mark No 2 807 210.

The request was filed in due time and is admissible as the earlier trade mark was registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

On 08/07/2016, the opponent was given two months to file the requested proof of use. Furthermore, as requested by the opponent, on 09/09/2016 the opponent was given a time extension of two months to submit the requested proof of use.

The opponent did not furnish any evidence concerning the use of the earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based. It did not argue that there were proper reasons for non-use either.

According to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, if the opposing party does not provide such proof before the time limit expires, the Office shall reject the opposition.

Therefore, the opposition must be rejected pursuant to Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR and Rule 22(2) EUTMIR.


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

Arkadiusz GORNY



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 shall be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.

Leave Comment