DECISION
of the First Board of Appeal
of 23 June 2015

In Case R 1670/2014-1

David Grohl
c/o Voldal Wartelle & Co., P.S. 10510 Northup Way, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033 United States of America	Opponent / Appellant

represented by MEWBURN ELLIS LLP, City Tower, 40 Basinghall Street, London EC2V 5DE, United Kingdom

v

Andreas Schweiger
Lilienstr. 6 DE-81669 München Germany	Applicant / Respondent

represented by Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte PartG MbB, Friedenheimer Brücke 21, DE-80639 München, Germany

APPEAL relating to Opposition Proceedings No B 1 862 195 (Community trade mark application No 9 816 621)

The First Board of Appeal

composed of Th. M. Margellos as a single Member having regard to Article 135(2) and (5) CTMR, Article 1(c)(2) BoA-RP and Article 10 of the Decision of the Presidium on the organisation of the Boards of Appeal as currently in force, and to the First Board’s Resolution No 3 of 9 March 2012 on decisions by a single Member

Registrar: H. Dijkema

gives the following

Decision

Summary of the facts

1. By an application filed on 16 March 2011, Andreas Schweiger (‘the applicant’) sought to register the figurative mark

for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25.

2. The application was published in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin No 095/2011 of 20 May 2011.

3. On 20 June 2012, David Grohl (‘the opponent’) filed a notice of opposition against all the goods of the Community trade mark application, invoking Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. The opposition was based on the earlier Community trade mark registration No 480 582, filed on 11 February 1997 and registered on 5 March 1999 for the word mark

FOO FIGHTERS

4. By decision dated 29 April 2014 (‘the contested decision’), the Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods, namely ‘stickers’ in Class 16, ‘goods made of leather and imitations of leather included in Class 18, bags’ in Class 18 and ‘clothing, namely t-shirts, pullovers, overalls and clothing for cooking; footwear; headgear’ in Class 25 and rejected the Community trade mark application for all these goods. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

5. On 30 June 2014, the opponent filed a notice of appeal and the corresponding statement of grounds was received on 29 August 2014.

6. On 11 December 2014, the applicant requested an extension of three months to file observations as the parties were negotiating to come to an amicable settlement.

7. On 16 December 2014, the Office informed the parties that the extension of the time-limit of three months for the applicant to file its observations had been granted i.e. until 13 March 2015.

8. By joint communication dated 12 March 2015, the parties requested a suspension of the proceedings, in order to explore the possibility of settling the matter amicably.

9. On 13 March 2015, the Office informed the parties that the current appeal proceedings would be suspended until 12 May 2015.

10. On 17 March 2015, the applicant informed the Office that an amicable settlement had been reached and requested the limitation of the goods covered by its CTM application by eliminating ‘leather and imitations of leather, trunks and travelling bags; rucksacks; umbrellas, sun umbrellas, parasols’ in Class 18.

11. By a communication dated 14 April 2015, the Office confirmed to the parties the requested limitation of goods and invited the opponent to file comments within one month.

12. On 15 April 2015, the opponent withdrew its appeal following the applicant’s limitation of the list of goods.

13. On 22 April 2015, the Office informed the parties of the withdrawal of the appeal and invited each of them to file comments on the apportionment of costs within one month.

14. On 22 April 2015, the applicant informed the Office of a prior agreement made with the opponent regarding the costs. On 24 April 2015, the opponent confirmed that a decision on costs would not be necessary.

Reasons

15. The Board hereby takes note of the limitation of the list of goods of the CTM application and of the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal proceedings are terminated, the contested decision refusing ‘stickers’ in Class 16, ‘goods made of leather and imitations of leather included in Class 18, bags’ in Class 18 and ‘clothing, namely t-shirts, pullovers, overalls and clothing for cooking; footwear; headgear’ in Class 25 has become final.

16. Pursuant to Article 85(5) CTMR, the Board further notes the agreement between the parties and that, as a consequence, a decision on costs is not required.

Order

On those grounds,

THE BOARD

hereby:

1. Takes note that the appeal has been withdrawn and closes the proceedings;

2. Takes note of the limitation consisting of the elimination of the following goods covered by the CTM application: ‘leather and imitations of leather, trunks and travelling bags; rucksacks; umbrellas, sun umbrellas, parasols’ in Class 18;

3. Takes note that no decision on costs is required.

Signed Th. M. Margellos

Registrar: Signed H.Dijkema