OPPOSITION No B 2 890 310

M7 Tobacco Trading Fzco, Plot No S51302, Jebel Ali, Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (opponent)

a g a i n s t

Khairat Al-Manafie Company, Zuqaq al-Balat Ahmed tabarra street Bedon building Second floor, Beirut, Lebanon (applicant), represented by Bogdan Alecu, Brasov, strada Paducelului 18, 600012, Brasov, Romania (professional representative).

On 26/10/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 890 310 is rejected as inadmissible.

2. The opposition fee will not be refunded.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 16 323 024 for the word mark ‘ZUMARRET’. The opposition is based on German non-registered trade mark ‘Zumerret’. The opponent invoked Article 8(4) EUTMR.

ADMISSIBILITY

According to Article 92(2) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition, now Article 119(2) EUTMR), natural or legal persons not having either their domicile or their principal place of business or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the EEA must be represented before the Office in accordance with Article 93(1) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition, now Article 120(1) EUTMR) in all proceedings established by the EUTMR, other than the filing of an application for a European Union trade mark.

At the time of filing of the opposition, the opponent had appointed a representative within the meaning of Article 92(2) EUTMR. However, in the course of the opposition proceedings, the opponent ceased to be represented by the representative indicated in the notice of opposition. In particular, on 01/02/2018 the opponent’s representative informed the Office that it no longer represented the opponent.

On 05/02/2018 the Office notified the opponent of the fact that it was no longer represented by a professional representative as required by Article 92(2) EUTMR. At the same time the opponent was given until 17/04/2018 to remedy the deficiency, namely to appoint a new representative in accordance with Article 92(2) EUTMR and Article 93(1) EUTMR.

According to Rule 17(4) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition), if the notice of opposition does not comply with the provisions of Rule 15 EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition) (other than referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 17 EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition), the Office will inform the opponent accordingly and invite it to remedy the deficiencies noted within a period of two months. If the deficiencies are not remedied before this time limit expires, the Office will reject the opposition as inadmissible.

The opponent did not reply within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the opponent did not remedy the fact that it does not have a representative in accordance with Article 92(2) EUTMR and Article 93(1) EUTMR.

The notice of opposition must therefore be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 17(4) EUTMIR.

Please note that the opposition fee will not be refunded. In accordance with Article 6(5) EUTMDR (former Rule 18(5) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the Office only refunds the opposition fee in the event of a withdrawal and/or restriction of the trade mark during the cooling-off period.

The Opposition Division

Pedro JURADO MONTEJANO

Adriana VAN ROODEN

Sandra IBAÑEZ

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 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 for appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to have been filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.