OPPOSITION No B 2 608 126

Mostoles Industrial, S.A., Granada, s/n, 28935 Mostoles (Madrid), Spain (opponent), represented by J.M. Toro, S.L.P., Viriato, 56 - 1º izda, 28010 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

TCC Global N.V., World Trade Centre, Zuidplein 84, 1077XV Amsterdam, Netherlands (applicant), represented by Kilburn & Strode LLP, Lacon London, 84 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8NL, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 19/11/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 608 126 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 14 461 123 for the figurative mark in Classes 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 36 and 41. The opposition is based on Spanish national trade mark registration No 994 679 for the figurative mark in Class 39. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition, now 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 publication 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.

On 21/06/2018 the applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the Spanish trade mark registration No 994 679 on which the opposition is based.

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

On 22/06/2018 the opponent was given two months (until 27/08/2018) to file the requested proof of use.

The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the use of the sole earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based. It did not argue that there were proper reasons for non-use either.

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 (former Rule 94(3) and Rule 94(7)(d)(ii) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), 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

Birgit FILTENBORG

Edith VAN DEN EEDE

Francesca CANGERI SERRANO

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.