Calculator company can’t count on General Court in TM dispute
The General Court has backed the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in dismissing an opposition filed by Moravia Consulting against a calculator trademark, despite claims Moravia had used the same mark in the Czech Republic.
In a decision handed down on Thursday, October 12, a five-judge panel dismissed Moravia’s opposition and ordered it to pay all costs.
The dispute began in April 2014, when calculator company Citizen Systems Europe filed an EU trademark, application number 012,780,061, for the ‘SDC-444S’ word mark for use with calculators and/or pocket calculators.
Two months later Moravia, which operates in the same field, filed an opposition to the mark, stating it had an unregistered mark in the Czech Republic and that Citizen Systems had filed in bad faith.
In June 2015, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO dismissed the opposition and ordered Moravia to pay the costs, in a decision that was also backed by the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO in April 2016.
In support of its opposition, Moravia supplied a previous order for calculators which had used the ‘SDC-445’ name and claimed that the mark applied for is devoid of distinctive character.
However, the General Court dismissed this and said the order is insufficient to prove trademark rights.
“The document provides no information on the use of the earlier mark relied on that relates to the place and duration of that use, or even on the possibility of concluding that the scope of that trademark is of more than mere local significance,” stated the ruling.
“Nor does that document contain information on the requisite conditions under the law of the Czech Republic.”
The court stated that Moravia had submitted “several examples of the calculator that it claims to market” which has ‘SDC-445’ engraved on it.
However, it explained that evidence was submitted too late and should have been submitted during the proceedings before the Opposition Division of the EUIPO.
The court quoted article 85(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which states that “evidence produced or offered is to be submitted in the first exchange of pleadings”.
The panel therefore rejected Moravia’s appeal and ordered it to pay its own costs.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
Today’s stop stories:
Apple ordered to pay $439m for infringing VirnetX patents
AIPPI 2017: Going for gold in sports IP deals
AIPPI 2017: Simon Tam on ‘The Slants’ case and his love of Ruth Ginsburg
Federal Circuit finds mail patents invalid under Alice despite Enfish plea
