QuTech | Decision 2494725

Date Published: Sep 28, 2017

OPPOSITION No B 2 494 725

Macroservice S.A., Gral. Margallo, 29, 28020 Madrid, Spain (opponent), represented by Gonzalez Vacas, S.L., Sagasta, 4, 28004 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Technische Universiteit Delft, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands (holder), represented by V.O., Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJ The Hague, The Netherlands (professional representative).

On 19/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 494 725 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of international registration designating the European Union No 1 205 676, namely against all the goods in Class 9. The opposition is based on Spanish trade mark registration No 2 725 161. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

Earlier trade mark	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.

On 18/01/2017 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 06/04/2017.

In the present case the evidence filed by the opponent, within the time limit, consists of an extract from a data base, a translation thereof and furthermore an extract from a database with a colour representation. According to the certificate submitted by the opponent, the registration of earlier Spanish trade mark No 2 725 161 was due to expire on 19/03/2017. The time limit for substantiation of the earlier right expired on 06/04/2017. Therefore, according to Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR, the opponent had to submit renewal certificates for the earlier right on or before 06/04/2017.

The evidence mentioned above is not sufficient to substantiate the opponent’s earlier trade mark, because there is no renewal certificate presented within the time limit.

The opponent submitted the renewal certificate on 09/05/2017, that is, only after the expiry of the time limit.  

According to Rule 19(4) EUTMIR, the Office shall not take into account written submissions or documents, or parts thereof, that have not been submitted, or that have not been translated into the language of the proceedings, within the time limit set by the Office.

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 holder 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 holder are the costs of representation which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Irina SOTIRIVA

Lena FRANKENBERG GLANTZ

Plamen IVANOV

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.