CANCELLATION No 13 322 C (REVOCATION)

Fashion TV Brand Holdings C.V., Keizersgracht 62, 1015 CS Amsterdam, the Netherlands (applicant)

a g a i n s t

Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Berliner Allee 2, 40212, Düsseldorf, Germany (EUTM proprietor), represented by Bird & Bird LLP, Carl-Theodor-Str. 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany (professional representative).

On 05/07/2021, the Cancellation Division takes the following

DECISION

1. The application for revocation is rejected in its entirety.

2. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 450.

REASONS

On 22/07/2016, the applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark registration No 303 412 ‘ABRAMS’ (word mark) (the EUTM). The request is directed against all the goods covered by the EUTM, namely all the goods in Class 25.

The applicant invoked Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR.

GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION

The present case forms part of a series of applications for revocation filed by the same applicant against the same EUTM proprietor (i.e. companies belonging to the Peek & Cloppenburg Fashion Group) in the second half of 2016.

In its decision of 26/09/2017 in case 13 262 C, the first one of this series to have been decided, the Cancellation Division found that the filing of this series of applications for revocation against the same EUTM proprietor constituted an abusive practice on the part of the applicant, and consequently it decided to reject the corresponding application as unfounded. This decision of the Cancellation Division was appealed and confirmed by the Grand Board by its decision of 11/02/2020 in case R 2445/2017-G (11/02/2020, R 2445/2017-G, Sandra Pabst, § 90 and 91). The decision of the Grand Board was not appealed and has now become final.

The reasoning of the decisions mentioned in the previous paragraph as regards the abusive conduct of the applicant vis-à-vis the EUTM proprietor is fully applicable to the case at hand, which forms part of the same series, and will not be reiterated in order to avoid unnecessary repetition.

In the light of the above, the Cancellation Division considers that, in the present case, the applicant is trying to rely on Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR for abusive ends which are not related to the public interest underlying this provision and, therefore, that the application for revocation must be rejected in its entirety as unfounded.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in cancellation proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

Since the applicant is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the EUTM proprietor in the course of these proceedings.

According to Article 109(7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(ii) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the EUTM proprietor are the representation costs, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Cancellation Division

Michaela SIMANDLOVA

Begoña URIARTE VALIENTE

Oana-Alina STURZA

According to Article 67 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 68 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be submitted in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be submitted 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 submitted 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.