EU court dismisses appeal over multiple errors in TM opposition
The EU General Court has rejected a Spanish company’s bid to oppose an EU cosmetics trademark, finding that its submission was partly filed in the incorrect language and did not identify the grounds of opposition.
In the ruling, issued today, February 13, the court affirmed the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to dismiss Valencia-based Etnia Dreams’ opposition.
In October 2016, Etnia filed an opposition to an EU trademark for ‘Etnik’, which was registered by Belgian resident Serge Poisson earlier that year.
The mark covered classes 3 and 35 for cosmetic products, and research in this field. The chosen language of proceedings was English.
The opposition division of the EUIPO rejected Etnia’s bid in November 2016, as the company had failed to clearly identify which earlier mark the opposition was based on. It also noted that a section of the opposition notice could not be taken into account as it had been filed in Spanish.
The earlier mark indicated in the opposition notice, the EUIPO found, was in fact the contested ‘Etnik’ mark, while the Spanish company’s ‘Etnia’ mark was not clearly indicated as the basis of its opposition.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the decision of the EUIPO to dismiss the action. While most of the opposition notice was drafted in English, the court said, the grounds for opposition section was submitted in Spanish and could not be admitted in the absence of a translation within the allotted period.
Etnia also argued that the EUIPO had denied it its right to be heard in the case. As the company had an opportunity to present its arguments before both the opposition division and the appeals board, the court said, its plea was dismissed.
The company claimed that the EUIPO’s action breached the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations, as it should have given Etnia time to correct its errors. The court found no provisions in regulation or EU law requiring the EUIPO to do so.
As Etnia did not provide a translation of the opposition grounds within one month of the opposition period’s expiry date, the court said, it “can not blame the EUIPO for failing to take into account a document which it has not produced”.
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 top stories:
Monster Energy drops TM clash with athletics company
Court orders Walmart to pay $95.5 million for TM infringement
