OPPOSITION No B 2 342 270
Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland (opponent), represented by Hoyng Rokh Monegier Spain LLP, Calle Ruiz de Alarcón, 7-2º Dcha, 28014 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
PM-International AG, Wäistrooss 15, 5445 Schengen, Luxembourg, (applicant), represented by Rau Schneck & Hübner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Königstraße 2, 90402 Nürnberg, Germany (professional representative).
On 26/07/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.
opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union
trade mark application No
SUBSTANTIATION-regarding earlier international trade mark registrations No 861 924, No 1 035 386 and No 1 011 037
According to Article 76(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 is 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 Rule 19(1) EUTMIR, 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.
According to Rule 19(2) EUTMIR, within the period referred to above, the opposing party must also file proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the opposition.
In particular, if the opposition is based on a registered trade mark which is not a European Union trade mark, the opposing party must provide a copy of the relevant registration certificate and, as the case may be, of the latest renewal certificate, showing that the term of protection of the trade mark extends beyond the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 and any extension thereof, or equivalent documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR.
In the present case the evidence filed by the opponent along with the notice of opposition (as far as earlier international trade mark registrations No 861 924, No 1 035 386 and No 1 011 037 are concerned) consists of excerpts from ‘OHIM-eSearch’, which is the database supported by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (former Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market).
On 17/04/2014 the opponent was given two months, commencing after the ending of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned material (proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier marks), namely until 17/08/2014. On 16/06/2014, due to the extension of the cooling-off period, the Office gave a new time limit, which expired on 17/06/2016.
The opponent did not submit further materials regarding the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier marks.
Following from the requirements of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR, in the case when the earlier trade mark is not a European Union trade mark (which is the case at issue), the opponent has to provide evidence of its filing or registration, by submitting documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered, which in the case at issue is the World Intellectual Property Organization. The opponent, as explained above, submitted evidence from ‘OHIM-eSearch’, supported by the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which however is not the institution that has registered the marks at issue. It must be held that since EUIPO is not competent for the management of the international registrations and is not the administration with which the application for a trade mark was lodged, within the meaning of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR, the documents produced by the opponent do not, for the purposes of that provision, constitute evidence of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of the international trade mark registrations (following from the judgment of 26/11/2014, T-240/13, Alifoods, EU:T:2014:994, § 26, 28).
According to Rule 20(1) EUTMIR, if until expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19(1) EUTMIR the opposing party has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as its entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.
The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded, as far as it is based on these earlier marks.
The Opposition Division will further continue with the examination of the opposition based on earlier European Union trade mark registration No 9 488 784, in regard to which Article 8(5) is invoked.
REPUTATION – ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR
According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, the contested trade mark will not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier European Union trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
Therefore, the grounds of refusal of Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met.
The signs must be either identical or similar.
The opponent’s trade mark must have a reputation. The reputation must also be prior to the filing of the contested trade mark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the goods and/or services on which the opposition is based.
Risk of injury: the use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.
The abovementioned requirements are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any one of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR (16/12/2010, T‑345/08, & T‑357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). However, the fulfilment of all the abovementioned conditions may not be sufficient. The opposition may still fail if the applicant establishes due cause for the use of the contested trade mark.
In the present case, the applicant did not claim to have due cause for using the contested mark. Therefore, in the absence of any indications to the contrary, it must be assumed that no due cause exists.
Reputation of the earlier trade mark
According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the European Union.
Reputation implies a knowledge threshold which is reached only when the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public for the goods or services it covers. The relevant public is, depending on the goods or services marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public.
In the present case the contested trade mark was filed on 14/11/2013. However, the contested trade mark has a priority date of 20/09/2013. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based had acquired a reputation in the European Union prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the reputation was acquired for the goods for which the opponent has claimed reputation, namely:
Class 34: Tobacco, raw or manufactured; tobacco products, including cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos, tobacco for roll your own cigarettes, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff tobacco, kretek; snus; tobacco substitutes (not for medical purposes); smokers' articles, including cigarette paper and tubes, cigarette filters, tobacco tins, cigarette cases and ashtrays, pipes, pocket apparatus for rolling cigarettes, lighters; matches.
In order to determine the mark’s level of reputation, all the relevant facts of the case must be taken into consideration, including, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.
On 08/09/2015 the opponent submitted evidence to prove the reputation of the earlier mark. For the sake of clarity, the Opposition Division lists the submitted evidence in the same way and with the indication given by the opponent. The evidence is the following:
Annex 1. A printout from www.forbes.com containing a press article entitled ‘A Closer Look At Philip Morris´ Asia Opportunity’, dated 03/05/2013. The article is in English and contains information about the presence of the opponent’s company and brand in Asia. It shows a representation of a coat of arms depicted in red, white and brown, where the letters ‘PM’ are shown and the words ‘PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL’ are positioned below, contained within a band: .
Annex 2 consists of a printout of a company overview of ‘Philip Morris’, carried out by www.threfis.com. Both the printing date of the document (24/06/2015) and the date of the last update of the information contained in it (23/06/2015) fall out of the relevant period of time.
Annex 3 contains Philip Morris´s annual reports for all years between 2009 and 2013, inclusive. According to the opponent, they are available to the public, and to shareholders. These reports refer to the presence of the ‘Philip Morris’ company in different markets, such as the European Union, and to the different products marketed by the company (for instance, ‘Marlboro’ and ‘Parliament’ cigarettes). The reports include representations of a complex device, containing the letters ´PM´ in the middle, as follows: . It appears on some of the pages of the reports with a reference to ‘Philip Morris’ company.
The document further contains pictures of packaging of some of the cigarettes sold by the company, under brands such ‘Marlboro’ and ‘Parliament’. The cigarettes marketed under ‘Marlboro’ seem to contain the representation of the sign referred to in the previous paragraph. However, it is not possible to see the parts of the sign in detail, due to their small size. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the device contains the letters ‘PM’: