LOGIC 5 | Decision 0465395 – Logic 3 International Limited v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated


Logic 3 International Limited, Rhodes Way, Watford  WD24 4YW, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by Forresters, Sherborne House, 119-121 Cannon Street, London  EC4N 5AT, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Harman International Industries, Incorporated, 8500 Balboa Blvd., Northridge, California 91329, United States of America (applicant), represented by Boult Wade Tennant, Verulam Gardens, 70 Gray's Inn Road, London  WC1X 8BT, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 26/06/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following


1.        Opposition No B 465 395 is rejected in its entirety.

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


The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 1 986 090 ‘LOGIC 5‘, namely against all the goods in Class 9. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 231 894 ‘LOGIC 3’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.


According to the records of the EUIPO, the only earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based, namely EUTM No 231 894, ceased to exist because it had expired on 19/04/2016.

The opposition may only be upheld with respect to an earlier right that is valid at the moment when the decision is taken. Since the EUTM application and the earlier right that has ceased to have effect cannot coexist anymore the opposition cannot be upheld to this extent. Such a decision would be unlawful (judgment of 13/09/2006, T-191/04, Metro, EU:T:2006:254, § 33-36).

Consequently, since there is no valid earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR at the moment of taking the present decision, the opposition must be rejected.


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



Lucinda CARNEY

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.

Leave Comment