OPPOSITION No B 2 764 044

Russell G. Weiner, 101 Convention Center Drive, Suite 777, Las Vegas, Nevada 89126, United States of America (opponent), represented by Osborne Clarke LLP,  One London Wall, London EC2Y 5EB, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Brendan OReilly, 147 Main Road, Cleeve North Somerset BS49 4PW, United Kingdom (applicant).

On 22/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 764 044 is rejected in its entirety.

2.        The opponent bears the costs.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 15 477 383, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 32 and 43. The opposition is based on the United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 654 375, Benelux trade mark registration No 201 249, Czech trade mark registration No 499 532, Finnish trade mark registration No T2012 03382, German trade mark registration No 30 2012 056 445, Italian trade mark registration No 1 568 228, Polish trade mark registration No 274 709, Portuguese trade mark registration No 506 861 and Swedish trade mark registration No 2012/07952. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

	ROCKSTAR BREWING COMPANY
Earlier trade marks	Contested sign

SUBSTANTIATION

According to Article 76(1) EUTMR, in proceedings before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office is restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.

It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.

According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR, the Office will give the opposing party the opportunity to present the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.

According to Rule 19(2) EUTMIR, within the period referred to above, the opposing party must also file proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the opposition.

In particular, if the opposition is based on a registered trade mark which is not a European Union trade mark, the opposing party must provide a copy of the relevant registration certificate and, as the case may be, of the latest renewal certificate, showing that the term of protection of the trade mark extends beyond the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 and any extension thereof, or equivalent documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR.

In the present case the notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence as regards the earlier trade marks on which the opposition is based.

On 13/09/2016 the opponent was given two months, commencing after the ending of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned material. This letter was accompanied by specific instructions to prove the existence, ownership and validity of the earlier rights and information that the opposition will be rejected when the evidence substantiating the earlier marks is not filed within the time limit (Rule 20(1) EUTMIR). After an extension, this time limit expired on 18/03/2017.

The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the substantiation of the earlier trade marks.

According to Rule 20(1) EUTMIR, if until expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19(1) EUTMIR the opposing party has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as its entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.

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. In the present case the applicant did not appoint a professional representative within the meaning of Article 93 EUTMR and therefore did not incur representation costs.

The Opposition Division

Birute SATAITE

Michaela SIMANDLOVA

Ioana MOISESCU

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.