OPPOSITION Nо B 3 108 698

OPPOSITION DIVISION

OPPOSITION Nо B 3 108 698

Groupe Marcelle Inc., 9200 de la Côte-de-Liesse Road, H8T 1A1 Lachine, Canada (opponent), represented by Lisbet Andersen, c/o Aumento Law Firm, Ny Østergade 3, 1101 København K, Denmark (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Katarzyna Kaczorowska, ul. Bitwy Warszawskiej 1920r. 23/126, 02-366 Warszawa, Poland (applicant), represented by Michał Jędrzejewski, ul. Rogalińska 1/44, 01-206 Warszawa, Poland (professional representative).

On 15/02/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.	Opposition No B 3 108 698 is upheld for all the contested goods and services, namely:

Class 3: Tints for the hair; Non-medicated shampoos; Dandruff shampoo; Emollient shampoos; Shampoo; Shampoo; Shampoo-conditioners; Non-medicated hair shampoos; Hair balm; Oils for hair conditioning; Hair gel; Hair wax; Hair lighteners; Hair tonic; Hair creams; Hair creams; Cosmetics for the use on the hair; Hair lotion; Hair spray; Hair mousse; Hair masks; Hair powder; Hair serums; Hair lotion; Hair lotion; Hair glaze; Hair protection lotions; Hair preparations and treatments; Hair protection gels; Hair dyeing preparations; Hair-waving preparations; Wave-set lotions; Hair-washing powder; Hair protection creams; Hair protection mousse; Hair treatment preparations; Hair care serums; Hairstyling serums; Hair strengthening treatment lotions; Preparations for protecting coloured hair; Gel sprays being styling aids; Hair rinses [for cosmetic use]; Cosmetic preparations for the hair and scalp; Hair care preparations, not for medical purposes; Hair preservation treatments for cosmetic use; Beauty tonics for application to the body; Non medicated skin toners; Skin toners; Tonics [cosmetic]; Beauty tonics for application to the face; Facial toners [cosmetic]; Toners for cosmetic use; Cleansing creams; Perfumed creams; Exfoliant creams; Non-medicated creams; Cosmetic creams; Creams for tanning the skin; Anti-wrinkle cream; Barrier creams; Conditioning creams; Camouflage cream; Moisturising creams; Anti-freckle creams; Creams for firming the skin; Face creams for cosmetic use; Aromatherapy creams; Body cream; Hand creams; Day creams; Night cream; Skin cream; Washing creams; Make-up removing creams; Shower creams; Bath creams (Non-medicated -); Creams for cellulite reduction; Skin cleansing cream; Non-medicated foot cream; Skin whitening creams; Creams for tanning the skin; Creams (Non-medicated -) for the eyes; Age spot reducing creams; Cosmetic hand creams; Sun protecting creams [cosmetics]; Dermatological creams [other than medicated]; Skin cleansing cream [non-medicated]; Anti-aging creams; Cosmetic creams for dry skin; Cold creams for cosmetic use; Moisturising creams, lotions and gels; Scented body lotions and creams; Moisturising skin creams [cosmetic]; Face creams for cosmetic use; Moisturising body lotion [cosmetic]; Anti-aging moisturizers used as cosmetics; Cosmetics; Non-medicated cosmetics; Make-up preparations; Cosmetic moisturisers; Moisturising concentrates [cosmetic]; Moisturising gels [cosmetic]; Toning creams [cosmetic]; Cosmetics containing keratin; Cosmetics containing panthenol; Beauty care cosmetics; Cosmetics in the form of creams; Cosmetic kits; Cosmetics in the form of milks; Body cream; Cosmetics containing hyaluronic acid; Skin care oils [cosmetic]; Skin care creams [cosmetic]; Cosmetics for the treatment of dry skin; Moisturising skin lotions [cosmetic]; Skin care lotions [cosmetic]; Moisturizing milk; Body milks; Cleansing milks for skin care; Milky lotions for skin care; Cleansing milk for toilet purposes; Make-up removing milks; Tanning milks [cosmetics]; Balms, other than for medical purposes; Body mist; Body sprays [non-medicated]; Oils for toilet purposes; Cleansing oil; Mineral oils [cosmetic]; Body oils [for cosmetic use]; Face oils; Oils for cosmetic purposes; Facial massage oils; Body oils [for cosmetic use]; Sun-tanning oils; After-sun oils [cosmetics]; Suntanning oil [cosmetics]; Distilled oils for beauty care; Non-medicated oils; Hand oils (Non-medicated -); Non-medicated shower oils; Non-medicated bath oils; Skin care oils [non-medicated]; Skin balms (Non-medicated -); Balms, other than for medical purposes; Cosmetic moisturisers; Conditioning balsam; Serums for cosmetic purposes; Anti-ageing serum; Facial serum for cosmetic use; Beauty serums; Non-medicated skin serums; Body emulsions; Day lotion; Cosmetic suntan lotions; Smoothing emulsions for the skin; Sunscreen preparations; Facial emulsions; Soap free washing emulsions for the body; Body powder; Hand powders; Powder for make-up; Face powder; Eyebrow powder; Face powder (Non-medicated -); Loose face powder; Loose face powder; Body powder (Non-medicated -); Perfumed powder [for cosmetic use]; Creamy face powder; Pre-moistened cosmetic wipes; Tissues impregnated with cosmetics; Facial wipes impregnated with cosmetics; Moist wipes for sanitary and cosmetic purposes; Skin fresheners; Moisturizers; Impregnated tissues for cleaning [non-medicated, for use on the person]; Non-medicated moisturisers; Ointments for cosmetic use; Face packs; Body mask lotion; Cosmetic masks; Hydrating masks; Skin masks [cosmetics]; Foot masks for skin care; Hand masks for skin care; Skin lightening creams; Skin lighteners; Skin lightening compositions [cosmetic]; Eye wrinkle lotions; Wrinkle removing skin care preparations; Wrinkle-minimizing cosmetic preparations for topical facial use; Age retardant gel; Anti-aging skincare preparations; Skincare cosmetics; Facial cleansers [cosmetic]; Facial washes [cosmetic]; Cosmetic skin enhancers; Cosmetic preparations for skin renewal; Cosmetic preparations for skin firming; Sun protecting creams [cosmetics]; Cosmetics for personal use; Cosmetics for use in the treatment of wrinkled skin; Non-medicated cleansing creams; Non-medicated toiletries; Creams (Non-medicated -) for the body; Skin cleansers [non-medicated]; Non-medicated body care preparations; Non-medicated face care preparations; Skin care creams, other than for medical use; Non-medicated beauty preparations; Salves [non-medicated].

Class 35: Retailing of cosmetics; Wholesaling of cosmetics.

European Union trade mark application No 18 130 823 is rejected for all the contested goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining uncontested goods and services, namely all the goods and services in Classes 5 and 41.

3.	The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 620.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against European Union trade mark application No 18 130 823 ‘MAESELLE’ (word mark). The opposition was initially directed against all the goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 35 and 41, but on 29/05/2020 the opponent limited the extent of the opposition and maintained it only against all the goods and services in Classes 3 and 35. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 17 955 385 (figurative mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION — ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs, and the relevant public.

a) The goods and services

The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 3: Skincare preparations and cosmetics.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 35: Retailing of cosmetics; Wholesaling of cosmetics.

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice Classification.

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or complementary to each other.

Contested goods in Class 3

The contested goods in this class are different kinds of cosmetic preparations for taking care of the body and skin used to enhance or protect the appearance or odour of the human body. Bearing this in mind, all the contested goods are identical to the opponent’s skincare preparations and cosmetics, either because they are identically contained in both lists (including synonyms) or because the opponent’s goods include, are included in, or overlap with, the contested goods.

Contested services in Class 35

According to the current practice of the Opposition Division, retail services concerning the sale of specific goods are considered similar to an average degree to these specific goods. Although the nature, purpose and method of use of these goods and services are not the same, they are similar because they are complementary and the services are generally offered in the same places where the goods are offered for sale. Furthermore, they target the same public. The same principles apply to services rendered in connection with other types of services that consist exclusively of activities revolving around the actual sale of goods, such as wholesale services, internet shopping, catalogue or mail order services in Class 35. Therefore, the contested Retailing of cosmetics; Wholesaling of cosmetics are similar to the opponent’s skincare preparations and cosmetics.

b) Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods and services found to be identical or similar are directed mostly at the public at large and also, some are directed at business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise (e.g wholesaling of cosmetics). The degree of attention is considered to be average.

c) The signs

MAESELLE

Earlier trade mark

Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).

The earlier mark is figurative and consists of the single verbal element ‘MARCELLE’, written in fairly standard uppercase letters. The contested sign is a word mark consisting of the verbal element ‘MAESELLE’.

The unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C-514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

As argued by the applicant, part of the public, such as the French-speaking public will associate the word ‘Marcelle’ of the earlier mark with the feminine version of the personal name ‘Marcel’. However, in other territories, for example in Poland, Spain, Czech Republic or Bulgaria, the word ‘MARCELLE’ will be perceived as meaningless by the majority of the average consumers. This is either because the respective counterparts that exist are quite distinct, and/or because the French name ‘Marcelle’ is not popular and/or is spelt/pronounced in an entirely different manner so that it would not evoke the French name but would rather be seen as a fanciful word with no particular meaning. As for the word ‘MAESELLE’ of the contested sign, it has no meaning in a significant part of the relevant EU territory, including in Poland, Spain, Czech Republic or Bulgaria. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the territories, in which the mentioned verbal elements of the signs will not invoke any meaning. This would have an impact on the conceptual aspect of the comparison of the signs, as the verbal elements are conceptually neutral, unlike in other territories in which they will be conceptually different.

The applicant argues that the French name ‘Marcelle’ is widely known and popular worldwide and that it will be understood within the EU. However, as mentioned above, this would not be the case as regards an important part of the relevant examined public in Poland, Spain, Czech Republic or Bulgaria.

In particular, it should be mentioned that in Spanish the equivalent for the French given name would be ‘MARCELA’ (female) and ‘MARCELO’ (male). Although these counterparts may look similar to ‘Marcelle’ of the earlier mark, the Spanish-speaking part of the public is not likely to perceive the element ‘MARCELLE’ as having any meaning or having any link with ‘Marcela/Marcelo’. This is because the doubling of the letters ‘LL’ in ‘Marcelle’ brings about a significant difference in Spanish. This difference is sufficiently strong and excludes the possibility of establishing a link with ‘Marcela/Marcelo’, and even less so in terms of their pronunciation, because the single letter ‘L’ and the double ‘LL’ in Spanish have an entirely different pronunciation. In addition, the majority of the average Spanish consumers do not have a knowledge of French.

Similarly, although the French name ‘MARCELLE’ looks similar to the Czech counterpart ‘Marcela‘, this is not immediately clear or recognisable bearing in mind the existing differences in spelling and pronunciation. As to Poland, the French name ‘MARCELLE’ has the following equivalents: female ‘Marcela’ or ‘Marcelina’ (male ‘Marcel’ or ‘Marceli’). Nevertheless, it is improbable that the relevant Polish-speaking public will establish a link between its local counterparts and the French version of the name, ‘MARCELLE’. This is because of the different spellings/pronunciation and also because, in general, female names in Poland end with an ‘a’. In view of this, it is quite likely that the term ‘MARCELLE’ will be perceived as devoid of any meaning by the majority of the relevant Polish-speaking part of the public. In relation to the Bulgarian-speaking public, no relevant counterparts of the French name ‘MARCELLE’ exist in that territory; although it is possible that some part of the public is familiar with the fact that this is a French name, the public will rather not link ‘MARCELLE’ with ‘Marsel’ (‘Марсел’ in Cyrillic), which is the way in which the French name will be written and pronounced in Bulgarian. Therebefore, a great majority of the Bulgarian public will perceive ‘MARCELLE’ (pronounced as ‘mar-ce-lle’) as lacking any meaning.

The applicant argues that ‘MARCELLE’ is widely popular within the European Union, as there are many famous women with the name ‘Marcelle’, e.g. Marcelle Meyer (a French
pianist) or Marcelle Bernstein (internationally bestselling novelist). In addition, the applicant attached a printout from ‘Facebook’ search results for the name ‘Marcelle’ and also argued that the Office has already registered two different trade marks that constitute a female name, with the first name ‘Marcelle’, namely the trade mark ‘MARCELLE CHAUMONT’, EUTM No 14426019 and ‘MARCELLE DORMOY’, EUTM No 14426051. According to the applicant, since the French name ‘Marcelle’ is widely known and since France is famous for its cosmetics having a very good quality, a lot of cosmetic companies use French female names as brands, and therefore, the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark is to be considered as very low.

In this regard, the Opposition Division notes the following. Firstly, as already explained above, a significant part of the relevant examined public will perceive the word ‘MARCELLE’ of the contested sign as meaningless. Secondly, the search results provided from ‘Facebook’ and the examples showing the existence of a couple of trade mark registrations do not reflect or demonstrate that the earlier trade mark has a low distinctive character. The Opposition Division notes that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market. In other words, on the basis of register data only, it cannot be assumed that these trade marks have been effectively used. It follows that the evidence filed does not demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and have become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element ‘MARCELLE’. Thirdly, the applicant failed to provide any evidence or more concrete arguments proving that the examined relevant part of the public is familiar with Marcelle Meyer or Marcelle Bernstein and, more importantly, that when confronted with the word ‘MARCELLE’, the examined part of the public will immediately establish a link with, or an evocation of the concept of a female name. Finally, the applicant did not provide any evidence in support of its statement that a lot of cosmetic companies use French female names, and in particular the French name ‘MARCELLE’. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s claims must be set aside.

Bearing in mind all the above, the verbal elements ‘MARCELLE’ and ‘MAESELLE’ of the signs will not be associated with any meaning by a significant part of the relevant examined public. Therefore, since the verbal element of the earlier mark has no descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak meaning in relation to the relevant goods, its inherent distinctive character is normal.

As to the minimal stylisation of the letters of the earlier mark, it is considered that the font of the letters is neither unusual nor memorable; the font resembles a standard, commonplace font (such as Arial or Times New Roman) and does not possess any particularly imaginative or fanciful features. Therefore, this minimal stylisation of the letters of the earlier mark will not be attributed any distinctiveness and has a limited impact on the public (if any), as an indicator of a particular commercial origin.

The marks have no element(s) that could be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other element(s).

Visually, the signs coincide in the sequence of letters ‘MA**ELLE’, which represent the first two and the last four letters of the only verbal elements of the signs, having the same length. These coincidences appear in the beginning and end of the most important and inherently distinctive elements of the signs. Consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.

The signs differ in the letters ‘RC’ versus ‘ES’ appearing hidden within the signs, disguised by the surrounding letters that are identical in both marks. The signs also differ in the stylisation of the letters of the earlier mark but, as explained, it is hardly distinctive (if at all).

Consequently, taking into account the fact that the signs have the same length and that the coincidences between them are in their beginning and ending, as well as the mentioned differences and their respective weight, it is concluded that the signs are visually similar to at least an average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘MA*ELLE’, present identically in the beginning and end of the inherently distinctive elements of both signs. The signs differ in the sound of the letters ‘RC’ versus ‘ES’. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the sound of the non-coinciding ‘C’ and ‘S’ letters are fairly close in pronunciation in the examined relevant territories, especially in Spain wherein their sound is very similar. Furthermore, although the structure and number of the syllables is not the same (e.g. MAR-CE-LLE vs. MA-E-SE-LLE), this does not have a significant impact in the flow of speech, especially because the beginning, end and length of the signs is the same, resulting in a fairly similar length and rhythm of pronunciation. Therefore, bearing in mind the aforesaid, it is considered that the signs are aurally similar to at least an average degree.

Conceptually, as mentioned above, neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23). It is a matter of law, which must be examined by the Office even if the parties do not comment on it. In contrast, the degree of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier sign is a matter of law and fact, which the Office cannot examine unless the opponent claims and substantiates it in due time (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Opposition Proceedings, paragraph 4.2, Substantiation).

The opponent claimed that the earlier trade mark enjoys enhanced distinctiveness. However, until the expiry of the substation period, which ended on 23/06/2020, the opponent did not file any evidence in order to prove such a claim. It was only with its last observations of 23/11/2020 that the opponent submitted some evidence.

In this regard, the Opposition Division notes that according to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in proceedings before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office will 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 Article 7(1) EUTMDR, the Office will 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.

In particular, if the opponent wishes to rely on a claim of enhanced distinctiveness of its earlier mark, it should make and substantiate its claim in due time, namely before the expiry of the substantiation period, which in the present case, ended on 23/06/2020.

According to Article 7(5) EUTMDR, the Office will not take into account written submissions, or parts thereof, which have not been submitted in or not been translated into the language of the proceedings, within the time limit set by the Office.

According to Article 8(1) EUTMDR, if until expiry of the period referred to in Article 7(1) EUTMDR, the opposing party has not submitted any evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as its entitlement to file the opposition, or where the evidence submitted is manifestly irrelevant or manifestly insufficient, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.

Article 8(1) EUTMDR is an essentially procedural provision and it is apparent from the wording of that provision that when no evidence with regard to the substantiation of the earlier mark concerned is submitted within the time limit set by the Office or where the evidence submitted is manifestly irrelevant or manifestly insufficient to meet the requirements laid down in Article 7(2) EUTMDR, the opposition must be rejected as unfounded. It follows that the Office cannot take into account evidence submitted for the first time after the expiry of the time limit when the evidence submitted within the time limit is manifestly irrelevant or manifestly insufficient.

In the present case, within the set time limit, the opponent did not file any evidence to prove its claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation. For this reason, the evidence submitted on 23/11/2020, after expiry of the time limit, cannot be taken into account for the assessment of the alleged enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark.

Given that the abovementioned evidence cannot be taken into account, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. Contrary to the claims of the opponent, the inherent distinctive character of a given trade mark cannot be more than ‘normal’ or ‘average’. It is Office practice, when an earlier mark is not descriptive (or is not otherwise non-distinctive), to consider it as having no more than a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness. As indicated above, this degree of distinctiveness can be further enhanced, but only if appropriate evidence is submitted showing that a higher degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark has been acquired through use.

Consequently, in view of all the above, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The contested goods and services are identical or similar to the opponent’s goods. They are directed at the public at large and at business consumers and the degree of attention is average. The earlier mark has a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness.

The signs are visually and aurally similar to at least an average degree. The conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

The words of which the marks consist have the same length. The differences between the signs are likely to go unnoticed by the consumers given that the beginnings and endings of the words are identical and the differences in between them become inconspicuous. The striking similarity between the verbal elements of the marks creates a high possibility of confusion of the two words, and the stylisation of the earlier mark cannot change this, as it is barely distinctive (if at all). Furthermore, none of the sings conveys a meaning that would assist the consumers in distinguishing between the marks.

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

Account is also taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

In view of the foregoing and taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, including the interdependence and imperfect recollection principles cited above, the Opposition Division concludes that the degree of similarity between the signs is sufficient to induce a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public in connection with identical and similar goods and services.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of a significant part of the public in Poland, Spain, Czech Republic or Bulgaria. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s EUTM registration No 17 955 385. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods and services.

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 applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.

According to Article 109(1) and (7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Gueorgui IVANOV

Liliya YORDANOVA

Anna PĘKAŁA

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.

Latest News

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMS TTAB DECISION ON REFUSAL
May 28, 2021
For the purpose of packaging of finished coils of cable and wire, Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc. (“Reelex”) filed for the registration of its box designs under International Class 9 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISMISSES NIKE’S APPEAL OVER INJUNCTION
May 27, 2021
Fleet Feet Inc, through franchises, company-owned retail stores, and online stores, sells running and fitness merchandise, and has 182 stores, including franchises, nationwide in the US.
UNO & UNA | DECISION 2661950
May 22, 2021
Marks And Spencer Plc, Waterside House, 35 North Wharf Road, London W2 1NW, United Kingdom, (opponent), represented by Boult Wade Tennant, Verulam Gardens, 70 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8BT, United Kingdom (professional representative)