OPPOSITION Nо B 3 113 686

 

Tedec-Meiji Farma, S.A.,  Ctra. M-300 KM, 30, 500, 28000 Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain (opponent), represented by Ryo Rodriguez Oca, S.L., Calle Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, 9 Apto. 507, 28036 Madrid, Spain (professional representative) 

 

a g a i n s t

 

Sahajanand Medical Technologies Private Limited, Sahajanand Estate Wakharia Wadi, Near Dabholi Char Rasta Ved Road, 395004 Surat, India (applicant), represented by Cabinet Lavoix, 62, Rue De Bonnel, 69448 Lyon Cédex 03, France (professional representative).

On 19/04/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

  

1.	Opposition No B 3 113 686 is rejected in its entirety.

 

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

 

REASONS

 

On 10/03/2020, the opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 142 620 SUPRAFLEX (word mark), namely against all the goods in Class 5. The opposition is based on, inter alia, Spanish trade mark registration No 2 884 292, SUPRALON. The opponent invoked  Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of filing or, where applicable, the date of priority 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 for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

 

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition will be rejected.

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of Spanish trade mark No 2 884 292.

 

The request was filed in due time and is admissible given that the earlier trade mark was registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

 

On 14/10/2020 the opponent was given two months to file the requested proof of use.

 

The opponent did not submit 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. The opponent only submitted, on 21/12/2020, the observations already submitted on 30/07/2020 during the time limit set to him for substantiation which were not accompanied by any evidence concerning the use of the earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based.

 

According to Article 10(2) EUTMDR, if the opposing party does not provide such proof before the time limit expires, the Office will reject the opposition.

 

Therefore, the opposition must be rejected pursuant to Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR and Article 10(2) EUTMDR.

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

 

 

Begoña URIARTE VALIENTE

Laurence DUBOIS-LUKOWIAK

Brigitte MARTIN ARRIBAS

 

 

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.