OPPOSITION No B 2 219 569

Farmoz-Sociedade Tecnico Medicinal, S.A., Rua da Tapada Grande, Nº 2, Abrubnheira, 2710-089 Sintra, Portugal (opponent), represented by C/M/S Rui Pena, Arnaut & Associados, Rua Sousa Martins, 10, 1050-218 Lisboa, Portugal (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Castagnola Limited, Fenton House 4 Hampstead Gate, A Frognal, London NW3 6AL United Kingdom (applicant), represented by Edwin Coe Llp, 2 Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3TH, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 27/10/2015, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 219 569 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 of Community trade mark application No 11 643 715, namely against all the goods in Class 5. The opposition is based on Portuguese trade mark registration No 259 052. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

LOTIN	LOTIL
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

SUBSTANTIATION

According to Article 76(1) CTMR, in proceedings before it the Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office shall be 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) CTMIR, the Office shall 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) CTMIR, within the period referred to above, the opposing party shall also file proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of his earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving his entitlement to file the opposition.

In particular, if the opposition is based on a registered trade mark which is not a Community 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) CTMIR.

On 6/8/2013 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 6/12/2013. After an extension of the cooling-off period, this time limit expired on 06/10/2015.

According to the registration certificate submitted by the opponent, the earlier mark expired on 22/8/2013.

However, the opponent did not submit any renewal certificate that proved that the mark was still registered after 22/8/2013, even though the Office stated clearly in the information sheet attached to the confirmation of the Opposition at the Office, that the Office would not ask for renewal certificate and that it is the obligation of the opponent to make sure that they provide us with all the necessary renewal certificates.

According to Rule 20(1) CTMIR, if until expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19(1) CTMIR the opposing party has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of his earlier mark or earlier right, as well as his entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition shall be rejected as unfounded.

The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded.

COSTS

According to Article 85(1) CTMR, 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 (7)(d)(ii) CTMIR, 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

Richard BIANCHI

Claudio MARTINEZ MÖCKEL

Justas IVANAUSKAS

According to Article 59 CTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 CTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. 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 800 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) CTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month from the date of notification of this fixation of costs and shall be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Article 2(30) CTMFR) has been paid.