OPPOSITION No B 3 048 448

Peter Waschkewitz, Zwischen den Bahnen 7, 32584 Löhne, Germany (opponent)

a g a i n s t

Viacom International Inc., 1515 Broadway, 10036-5794 New York, United States (applicant), represented by Maucher Jenkins, 26 Caxton Street, London SW1H 0RJ, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 16/10/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 048 448 is rejected as inadmissible.

2. The opposition fee will not be refunded.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the services of European Union trade mark application No 17 552 407, namely against all the services in Class 41. The opposition is based on German trade mark registration No 39 834 779. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR.

SUNNY DAY	NICKELODEON SUNNY DAY
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

ADMISSIBILITY

According to Article 2(g) EUTMDR, the notice of opposition must indicate the goods and services on which each of the grounds for the opposition is based.

In the present case, there is no indication of the services on which the opposition is based for earlier trade mark No 39 834 779, there is no indication of the services on which the reputation is based for earlier trade mark No 39 834 779 and neither the opposition form nor the attached documents contain a list of the goods and services covered by the earlier mark in the language of proceedings.

According to Article 5(5) EUTMDR, if the notice of opposition does not comply with the provisions of Article 2(2)(d) to (h) EUTMDR, 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 Office informed the opponent of the deficiencies in its notification dated 05/04/2018. The opponent was set a time limit of two months, until 05/06/2018, to remedy the deficiencies, namely to indicate the goods and services on which the opposition is based for earlier trademark No 39 834 779 and to indicate as well the goods and services on which the reputation is based for earlier trademark No 39 834 779:

The opponent did reply within the prescribed time limit explaining his reasons for filing the opposition. In none of the opponent’s communications have, however, been indicated in the language of the proceedings the goods and services on which the opposition is based, or the goods and services in which the reputation is based.

For this reason the deficiencies were not remedied.

The opposition must therefore be rejected as inadmissible.

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

Edith Elisabeth VAN DEN EEDE

Jose Maria FERNANDEZ RUEDA

Olga VALDELOMAR CRESPO

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.