MR FREEDOM KINGS ROAD LONDON SINCE 1970 | Decision 2444266 - Christophe Loiron v. Mohammed Khan

Date Published: Oct 1, 2017

OPPOSITION No B 2 444 266

Christophe Loiron, 7161 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles California 90036, United States of America (opponent), represented by Osborne Clarke, 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, Bristol  BS1 6EG United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a I n s t

Mohammed Khan, 7 Graces Mews, Abbey Road, London  NW8 9AZ, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by Ladas & Parry LLP, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London  EC4Y 0DA, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 28/09/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 444 266 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 13 210 208, namely against all the goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25. The opposition is based on international trade mark registration No 1 091 651 designating the European Union and the United Kingdom. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and 8(5) EUTMR.

Mister Freedom
Earlier trade marks	Contested sign

EARLIER RIGHT CEASED TO EXIST

According to Article 41(1)(b EUTMR the owner of an earlier right as laid down in Article 8(2) EUTMR can file an opposition against a European Union trademark application.

An Opposition can only be upheld in regard of an earlier right that is in force at the decision date (13/09/2006, T-191/04, Metro, EU:T:2006:254, § 33-36).

On 08/06/2016 the Cancellation Division declared the international trademark registration No 1 091 651 invalid in its entirety for the European Union (cancellation No. 11 807 C).

Accordingly this earlier right can not be considered an earlier right as laid down in Article 8(2) EUTMR any longer and thus not serve as basis of an opposition.

The opposition must, therefore, be rejected as unfounded as far as it is based on international trade mark registration No 1 091 651 designating the European Union.

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 validity of the only remaining earlier right on which the opposition is based after the invalidation of international trademark registration No 1 091 651 designating the EU, namely the international trade mark registration No 1 091 651 designating the United Kingdom.

On 10/03/2017 the opponent was given two months, commencing after the ending of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned material. This time limit expired on 05/06/2017.

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

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 as far as it is based on international trade mark registration No 1 091 651 designating the United Kingdom.

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

Manuela RUSEVA

Volker Timo MENSING

Natascha GALPERIN

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.