TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET
(TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)
The Boards of Appeal
DECISION
of the First Board of Appeal
of 11 January 2007
In Case R 584/2006-1
TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A.
Goya, 24
E-28001 Madrid
Spain
Opponent/Appellant
represented by Javier Ungria López, Avda. Ramón y Cajal, 78, E-28043 Madrid,
Spain
v
TECHNOGYM S.p.A.
Via G. Perticari, 20
I-47035 Gambettola (Forlì)
Italy
Applicant/Respondent
represented by BUGNION S.P.A., Via Goito, 18, I-40126 Bologna, Italy
APPEAL relating to Opposition Proceedings No B 746 810 (Community trade mark
application No 3 023 918)
THE FIRST BOARD OF APPEAL
composed of Th. Margellos (Chairperson), Ph. von Kapff (Rapporteur) and
U. Wennermark (Member)
Registrar: E. Gastinel
gives the following
__________________________________________________________________________________
Language of the case: English
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
2
Decision
Summary of the facts
1
By an application which was granted a filing date of 27 January 2003, the
applicant sought to register the word mark
EMOTIONESS
for a number of goods in Classes 3, 5, 9, 10, 16, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42.
2
The application was published in Community Trade Marks Bulletin on 21 June
2004.
3
On 21 September 2004, the opponent, acting under the company name
‘TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A.’, filed an opposition against the registration of
the published trade mark application for all the above goods. The opposition was
based on:
A. the word mark
E-MOCION
registered as a Community trade mark under No 1 673 029 for goods and services
in Classes 16, 35, 41 and 42.
B. the figurative mark
registered as a Community trade mark under No 001672971 for goods and
services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42.
C. the figurative mark, claiming the colours blue, green, white, orange, dark
orange,
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
3
registered as a Community trade mark under the number No 1 672 773 for goods
and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42.
4
The opponent founded its opposition on a likelihood of confusion pursuant to
Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (‘CTMR’) (OJ EC 1994 No L 11, p. 1; OJ OHIM 1/95,
p. 52) due to the identity and/or similarity of the concerned marks and goods.
5
Together with the notice of opposition the opponent submitted extracts from the
official CTM-ONLINE database relating to the earlier CTM registrations 1 672
773, 1 672 971 and 1 673 029. These extracts, however, were in the name of
TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A.U..
6
On 1 December 2004 the Opposition Division informed the opponent that it had
until 13 April 2005 to submit any further material it felt necessary to support its
opposition. This period was subsequently extended until 13 June 2005. Attached
to the notification of 1 December 2004, the Opposition Division, sent an
information sheet on evidence stating the particulars to be proved:
“8(1) CTMR : Earlier registration or application (other than CTM): all the formal and
substantive particulars must be shown, namely (a) the issuing authority (b) the filing and/or
registration number(s) (c) the territorial extent (for international registrations) (d) the filing,
priority & registration dates (e) a representation of the sign as filed or registered (f) the
goods/services covered (g) the expiry date of the registration (h) the opponent’s ownership, as
well as (i) any other inscription affecting the legal status or the scope of protection of the mark
(disclaimers, limitations, renewals, transfers, pending actions etc.).”
7
The opponent did not file any observations in reply.
8
By decision of 28 February 2006 ruling on opposition No B 746 810 (hereinafter
‘the contested decision’), the Opposition Division rejected the opposition on the
following grounds:
•
Together with the notice of opposition the opponent submitted extracts from
the official CTM -ONLINE database relating to the earlier CTM registrations
1 672 773, 1 672 971 and 1 673 029. These extracts, however, were not in the
name of the opponent, TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A., but rather in the
name of TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A.U.. The Office points out that
TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A.U. is the current owner of these registrations.
Therefore, according to Rule 19(2) IR the opponent failed to file proof of its
entitlement to file an opposition based on these earlier registrations. As no
evidence was provided to substantiate the ownership of these earlier rights the
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
4
opponent did not prove within the deadline given that it is entitled, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 42(1)(a)CTMR, to enforce earlier
CTM registrations No 1 672 773, 1 672 971 and 1 673 029 cited as the basis
of the opposition. Thus, the opposition must be rejected in accordance with
Rule 20(1).
9
On 26 April 2006, the opponent filed an appeal against the entirety of the
contested decision.
Submissions and arguments of the parties
10 The arguments raised by the appellant in the statement of grounds may be
summarised as follows:
•
Both names refer to the same company according to Spanish law. The
opponent’s registered company name is TELEFONICA MOVILES, S.A.. The
opponent is the owner of the three earlier trade marks.
11 No observations were sent by the applicant.
Reasons
12 The appeal complies with Articles 57, 58 and 59 CTMR and Rules 48 to 49 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, hereinafter
‘CTMIR’ (OJ EC 1995 No L 303, p. 1; OJ OHIM 2-3/95, p. 258). It is therefore
admissible.
13 The appeal is also well founded and the contested decision is annulled. It is clear
that the opponent is the proprietor of the earlier trade marks.
14 The Opposition Division was correct to state that according to Article 42(1)(a)
CTMR, the proprietor of earlier trade marks referred to in Article 8(2) CTMR
may file an opposition to the registration of a Community trade mark application.
According to Rule 15(2)(b) CTMIR, the notice of opposition shall contain a clear
identification of the earlier mark on which the opposition is based.
15 When, however, the opposition is based on a Community trade mark, the
opponent only needs to indicate that it is a Community trade mark and the
corresponding registration number. According to Rule 15(2)(h) CTMIR, the
notice of opposition shall further contain the name and address of the opposing
party in accordance with Rule 1(1)(b) CTMIR. Contrary to what the Opposition
Division appears to have assumed in the contested decision, no further proof of
ownership of the earlier Community trade marks under Rule 19(1)(2)(a) CTMR,
is necessary.
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
5
16 The opponent filed its opposition in the name of ‘Telefónica Móviles S.A.’. The
company is the same as the one that filed the earlier Community trade marks at
issue and which is named there as ‘Telefónica Móviles S.A.U.’.
17 It is mandatory for a Spanish sociedad anónima (public limited company) to
indicate ‘sociedad anónima’ or its abbreviation ‘S.A.’ in the name, as foreseen in
Article 2 of Spanish Law on Public Limited Companies1. No other abbreviation
other than ‘S.A.’ is admissible. This obligation does not change, even when a
‘sociedad anónima’ has a single shareholder (sociedad anónima unipersonal).
18 Equally, when registering a Spanish sociedad anónima into the company’s
register, the type of company must, in accordance with Article 403 of the Law on
the Commercial Register2, be indicated without any additional reference to the
unipersonal character.
19 Only, with respect to its documentation, correspondence, commercial orders and
invoices, along with all announcements, does a unipersonal limited company
have to publish according to legal or statutory provisions, and in such a case the
company must refer to the fact that it has only one shareholder, as provided for in
the combined provisions of Article 311 Spanish Law on Public Limited
Companies3 and Article 126 Spanish Law on Limited Companies4.
20 The unipersonal company may indicate its unipersonal character to the public
when acting in the course of trade or industry in particular by either adding the
1
‘Artículo 2 Ley de sociedades anónimas – Denominación
1. En la denominación de la compañía deberá figurar necesariamente la indicación “sociedad
anónima” o su abreviación. …’
2
‘Artículo 403 Reglamento del Registro Mercantil – Indicación de la forma social
1. En la denominación social deberá figurar la indicación de la forma social de que se trate o su
abreviatura. En el caso de que figure la abreviatura, se incluirá esta al final de la denominación.
2. En las denominaciones de las sociedades inscribibles, solo podrán utilizarse las siguientes
abreviaturas:
1ª S.A., para la sociedad anónima. …’
3
‘Articulo 311 Ley de sociedades anónimas – Sociedad anónima unipersonal
Será de aplicación a la sociedad anónima unipersonal lo dispuesto en el capitulo XI de la Ley de
Sociedades de Responsabilidad Limitada.’
4
‘Capitulo XI Ley de sociedades de Responsabilidad Limitada - Sociedad Unipersonal de
responsabilidad Limitada
Artículo 126 – Publicidad de la unipersonalidad
1. La constitución de una sociedad unipersonal de responsabilidad limitada, la declaración de tal
situación como consecuencia de haber pasado un único socio a ser propietario de todas las
participaciones sociales, la perdida de tal situación o el cambio del socio único como consecuencia de
haberse transmitido alguna o todas las participaciones, se harán constar en escritura publica que se
inscribirá en el Registro Mercantil. En la inscripción se expresara necesariamente la identidad del
socio único.
2. En tanto subsista la situación de unipersonalidad, la sociedad hará constar expresamente su
condición de unipersonal en toda su documentación, correspondencia, notas de pedido y facturas, así
como en todos los anuncios que haya de publicar por disposición legal o estatutaria.’
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
6
word ‘unipersonal’ or by using the abbreviation ‘U’, such as in ‘S.A.U.’.
However, it remains that ‘unipersonal’ is not part of the company name. It will,
therefore, not be registered as such and must be dropped in the course of trade
once additional shareholders join the company.
21 As the opponent explained, the company had first only one shareholder and added
therefore the ‘U’ to its name, when filing the Community trade mark. When, later,
more shareholders joined, the ‘U’ was dropped, but without, in effect, changing
the name of the company in the Community trade marks register.
22 Furthermore, another aspect should have led the examiner to assume that
‘Telefónica Móviles S.A.’ and ‘Telefónica Móviles S.A.U.’ must refer to the
identical company: under Spanish law, identical company names cannot be
registered twice for a limited company, as prohibited by Article 2 of the Spanish
Law on Public Limited Companies5.
23 The Opposition Division should have known these aspects of Spanish company
law (see judgments of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 in Case T318/03 Atomic Austria GmbH v OHIM (‘Atomic Blitz’) [2005] ECR II-1319; and
of 6 September 2006 in Case T-6/05 DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH v
OHIM (‘First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector’) [2006] ECR publication
pending).
24 If it had doubts, the Opposition Division, should have referred to the opponent in
accordance with Article 43(1) CTMR, which states that the Opposition Division
must refer to the parties as often as necessary.
25 In addition, the Opposition Division did not give the right to be heard, this
contrary to Article 73 CTMR, which states that the Office shall base its decision
only on reasons or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an
opportunity to present their comments.
26 Under these circumstances, rectification under the rules of revision of decisions in
inter partes cases in accordance with Rule 60a CTMR would have seemed
appropriate.
Costs
27 In application of Article 81(2) CTMR, it seems appropriate, that each party bears
its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
5
‘Articulo 2 Ley de sociedades anónimas – denominación
2. No se podrá adoptar una denominación idéntica a la de otra sociedad preexistente.’
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
7
28 Moreover, not granting the right to be heard, which might have clarified the
wrong application of Spanish law, amounts to a substantial procedural violation
under Rule 51 CTMIR, and this, therefore justifies the reimbursement of the
appeal fee.
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION
8
Order
On those grounds,
THE BOARD
hereby:
1.
2.
4.
3.
Annuls the contested decision dated 28 February 2006 in opposition case
No B 746810.
Remits the case to the Opposition Division.
Orders the reimbursement of the appeal fee.
Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the appeal procedure.
Th. Margellos
Ph. von Kapff
U. Wennermark
Registrar:
E. Gastinel
DECISION OF 11 JANUARY 2007 – R 584/2006-1 – EMOTIONESS / E-MOTION