OPPOSITION No B 2 547 712

Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Platz 1, 70839 Gerlingen, Germany (opponent), represented by Robert Bosch GmbH - Dieter Alvermann -, Wernerstraße 1, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany (employee representative)

a g a i n s t

Bosco Brands UK Ltd., 29 Welbeck Street First Floor, London W1G 8DA, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by Perani & Partners SPA, Piazza San Babila 5, 20122 Milano, Italy (professional representative).

On 04/08/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 547 712 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the services (in Classes 35, 36 and 42) of European Union trade mark application No 13 666 607 (figurative mark:
“ ”). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 67 744 (word mark: “BOSCH”). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR, if the applicant so requests, the opponent shall furnish proof that, during the period of five years preceding the date of publication of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and which it cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use.

According to the same provision, in the absence of such proof the opposition must be rejected.

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade mark on which the opposition is based, namely European Union trade mark registration
No 67 744.

The request was submitted in due time and is admissible given that the earlier trade mark was registered more than five years (26/06/2000) prior to the relevant date.

The contested application was published on 14/04/2015. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in the European Union from 14/04/2009 to 13/04/2015 inclusive. Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the services on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

Class 35: Design and development, technical testing and economic preparation from an organizational point of view (Class 35) of space travel projects.

Class 36: Services in insurance.

Class 42: Building and construction planning and consultancy; creation and installation of programs for data processing; carrying out calculations for third parties; carrying out development, test and research contracts; technical consultancy and expert activities; planification and development and technical examination of aerospace projects; watching service for buildings and apparatus.

According to Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, the evidence of use shall consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods and services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

On 12/02/2016 the opponent was given two months to file the requested proof of use.

The opponent did not furnish any evidence concerning the use of the earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based. It did not argue that there were proper reasons for non-use either.

According to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, if the opposing party does not provide such proof before the time limit expires, the Office shall reject the opposition.

Therefore, the opposition must be rejected pursuant to Article 42(2) EUTMR and Rule 22(2) EUTMIR.

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 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

Konstantinos MITROU

Peter QUAY

Karin KUHL

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 shall be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.