NEOSSENCE | Decision 2768904 - Christian MULLER v. BOLASECA, S.A.

OPPOSITION No B 2 768 904

Laurence Fanuel, 33 rue Michelet, 93100 Montreuil, France (opponent), represented by Office Mediterraneen de Brevets d'Invention et de Marques Cabinet Hautier, 20, rue de la Liberté, 06000 Nice, France (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Bolaseca, S.A., Rosales, 2 bis, 30565 Las Torres de Cotillas (Murcia), Spain (applicant), represented by Ingenias, Av. Diagonal 421,2º, 08008 Barcelona, Spain (professional representative).

On 28/03/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following


1.        Opposition No B 2 768 904 is rejected in its entirety.

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


The opponent filed an opposition against all the services of European Union trade mark application No 15 295 447, namely those in Class 35. The opposition is based on French trade mark registration No 164 251 931 in Class 35. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.



Earlier trade mark

Contested sign


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.

According to Rule 19(3) EUTMIR, the information and evidence referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 must be in the language of the proceedings or accompanied by a translation. The translation must be submitted within the time limit specified for submitting the original document.

According to Rule 98(1) EUTMIR, when a translation of a document is to be filed, the translation must identify the document to which it refers and reproduce the structure and contents of the original document.

The opponent forwarded evidence of the French registration, together with the notice of opposition in French, without translation in the language of the proceedings.

On 24/01/2017, the opponent filed its observations in the language of the proceedings (English) containing certain data, such as the services on which the earlier mark is based. However, such document does not meet the requirements set in Rule 98(1) EUTMIR.

In this context the Opposition Division notes that the document submitted by the opponent does not contain all the relevant data of the French registration certificate. Hence, said document does not reproduce the structure and contents of the evidence to be translated.

According to Rule 19(4) EUTMIR, the Office will 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.

It follows that the evidence filed by the opponent cannot be taken into account.

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.


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


Chantal VAN RIEL


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.

Start your Trademark Study today!

This report is optional but highly recommended.
Before filing your trademark, it is important that you evaluate possible obstacles that may arise during the registration process. Our Trademark Comprehensive Study will not only list similar trademarks {graphic/phonetic} that may conflict with yours, but also give you an Attorney's opinion about registration possibilities.