OUTRIDER | Decision 0014356
Date Published: Oct 1, 2017
CANCELLATION No 14356 C (REVOCATION)
J M Green & Co, Barnett House 53 Fountain Street, Manchester M2 2AN, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by Williams Powell, Staple Court 11 Staple Inn Buildings, London WC1V 7QH, United Kingdom (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
Outrider Limited, 1 Paris Garden, London SE1 8NU, United Kingdom (EUTM proprietor), represented by Bristows LLP, 100 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0DH, United Kingdom (professional representative).
On 07/06/2017, the Cancellation Division takes the following
DECISION
1. The application for revocation is upheld.
2. The EUTM proprietor’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 1 855 725 are revoked as from 17/01/2017 for all the contested goods, namely:
Class 9: Computer software.
3. The European Union trade mark remains registered for all the uncontested goods and services, namely:
Class 16: Publications.
Class 35: Advertising and promotional services; placing advertisements; advertising consultancy; market research and marketing studies; analysis of advertising response and market research; business advisory services; computerised data-based management services; data processing, business planning and business strategy services, customer relationship analysis services.
Class 42: Design, drawing and commissioned writing, all for the compilation of web pages on the Internet, creating and maintaining web sites; advisory services relating to all the aforesaid services.
4. The EUTM proprietor bears the costs, fixed at EUR 1 080.
REASONS
The applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark No 1 855 725 ‘OUTRIDER’ (word mark) (the EUTM). The request is directed against some of the goods and services covered by the EUTM, namely:
Class 9: Computer software.
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.
According to Article 51(2) EUTMR, where the grounds for revocation of rights only exist for some of the goods or services for which the European Union trade mark is registered, the proprietor’s rights must be revoked for those goods and services only.
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 12/07/2002. The revocation request was filed on 17/01/2017. Therefore, the EUTM had been registered for more than five years at the date of the filing of the request.
On 03/02/2017, 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 the contested goods.
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 the contested goods 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 partially revoked and deemed not to have had any effects as from 17/01/2017 for all the contested goods. The EUTM remains valid for all the uncontested goods and services.
COSTS
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.
The Cancellation Division
Agueda MAS PASTOR | Anna DĄBROWSKA | Jose Antonio GARRIDO OTAOLA |
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).