OPPOSITION Nо B 3 049 623

 

Snapp (S.A.S.), Le Grand Angle Avenue Perié, 33520 Bruges, France (opponent), represented by François-Xavier Langlais, 20 rue Euler 4ème étage, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative) 

 

a g a i n s t

 

Snap Inc., 2772 Donald Douglas Loop North, 90405 Santa Monica, United States of America (applicant), represented by KNPZ Rechtsanwälte – Klawitter Neben Plath Zintler – Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Str. 9, 20355 Hamburg, Germany (professional representative).

On 07/07/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

1.	Opposition No B 3 049 623 is rejected in its entirety.

 

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

 

REASONS

 

On 10/04/2018, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 17 619 917, ‘SNAP MAP’ (word mark), namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 41. The opposition is based on French trade mark registration No 3 734 139, (figurative mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

 

 

 

CEASING OF EXISTENCE OF THE EARLIER RIGHT

 

According to Article 46(1)(a) EUTMR, within a period of three months following the publication of an EUTM application, notice of opposition to registration of the trade mark may be given on the grounds that it may not be registered under Article 8:

 

(a) by the proprietors of earlier trade marks referred to in Article 8(2) as well as licensees authorised by the proprietors of those trade marks, in respect of Article 8(1) and 8(5);

 

Furthermore, according to Article 8(2) EUTMR, ‘earlier trade mark’ means:

 

(i) trade marks with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application of the contested mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of the marks referred to in Article 8(2)(a) EUTMR; 

 

(ii) applications for a trade mark referred to in Article 8(2)(a) EUTMR, subject to their registration;

 

(iii) trade marks which are well known in a Member State.

 

Therefore, the legal basis of the opposition requires the existence and validity of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR.

 

In this respect, if, in the course of the proceedings, the earlier right ceases to exist (e.g. because it has been declared invalid or it has not been renewed), the final decision cannot be based on it. The opposition may be upheld only with respect to an earlier right that is valid at the moment when the decision is taken. The reason why the earlier right ceases to have effect does not matter. Since the EUTM application and the earlier right that has ceased to have effect cannot coexist any more, the opposition cannot be upheld to this extent. Such a decision would be unlawful (13/09/2006, T‑191/04, Metro, EU:T:2006:254, § 33-36).

 

On 10/04/2018, the opponent filed a notice of opposition claiming as the basis of the opposition French trade mark registration No 3 734 139, (figurative mark), which was filed on 29/04/2010 and registered on 17/09/2010.

 

However, that trade mark registration expired on 29/04/2020 and was not renewed within the due deadline or within the further six months following the day on which protection ended. It follows that the earlier French trade mark registration No 3 734 139, (figurative mark) has ceased to exist and is, therefore, not an ‘earlier trade mark’ within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR.

  

In view of this, on 08/03/2021 the opponent was requested to inform the Office whether it maintained the opposition. The opponent did not reply to this notification.

 

The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded.

 

COSTS

 

According to Article 109(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 Article 109(7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) 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

 

 

Helena GRANADO CARPENTER

Helen Louise MOSBACK

Inês RIBEIRO DA CUNHA

 

 

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.