• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Invalidity proceedings in opposition proceedings – with success analysis

14. June 2019

The publisher of the fashion magazine Vogue opened invalidity proceedings against an earlier mark during opposition proceedings against that mark. The Vogue Publishers were entitled to a success analysis of the nullity proceedings in the assessment of the application for suspension of the opposition proceedings, the CFI ruled.

Vogue FashionOpening invalidity proceedings in response to opposition proceedings is a common way to succeed in trade mark proceedings. The plaintiff Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc, publishing inter alia the famous fashion magazine Vogue, had done so. The intervener’s legal predecessor, Enovation Brands, Inc., had filed an opposition against the registration of the word mark VOGUE and relied on its own earlier similar word mark VOGA. When that opposition was partially upheld, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (‘Vogue Publisher’) brought invalidity proceedings against the earlier word mark Voga, claiming that the Voga mark had been registered in bad faith, taking advantage of the reputation of the well-known Vogue mark. At the same time, Vogue Publishers filed a motion for suspension of the opposition proceedings pending a decision on the invalidity proceedings.

However, by decision of 27 March 2018 in Case R 259/2017-4 (“the contested decision”), the Board of Appeal of EUIPO dismissed the application for suspension and upheld the decision of the Opposition Division. The Vogue publishers filed a lawsuit against this before the European Court of Justice (Court of First Instance, CFI).

Suspension procedure is optional

In its judgment (EU:T:2019:406), the European Court first clarified that there is no right to a request for suspension of the opposition procedure. Rather, the European Patent and Trade Mark Office (EUIPO) may suspend the opposition proceedings – if a suspension is appropriate to the circumstances. The Court pointed out that there was a wide field of discretion and that the suspension procedure remained optional for the Board of Appeal.

The CFI ruled that filing an application for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark is completely independent of parallel opposition proceedings. Opposition proceedings and invalidity proceedings are two different and autonomous types of proceedings.

Right to success analysis for invalidity proceedings

The CFI stated that the Board of Appeal could not refuse a suspension on the sole ground that the invalidity proceedings against the earlier mark in the opposition proceedings had been initiated during the opposition proceedings. However, if the Board of Appeal suspects delaying tactics, it may reject the application for suspension.

Nevertheless, the Board of Appeal committed an error of assessment in rejecting the application for suspension, the European Court ruled. The CFI clarified that the Board of Appeal is obliged to strike a balance between the interests in question when exercising its discretion with regard to an application for suspension. This also requires a preliminary assessment of the prospects of success of the invalidity proceedings and to take account of that assessment. However, the Board of Appeal refused to carry out a Prima-Facie-Analysis of the applicant’s prospects of success in the invalidity proceedings.

The CFI therefore upheld Vogue Publisher’s action and annulled the contested decision rejecting the application for suspension of the opposition proceedings.

Do you need assistance in invalidity proceedings or opposition proceedings?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law. Please take your chance and contact us.

 

Sources:

Judgment of CFI EU:T:2019:406

Image:

AhmadArdity /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconInvalidity proceedings in opposition proceedings,  application for suspension,  suspension of the opposition proceedings,  opposition proceedings,  invalidity proceedings,  Prima-Facie-Analysis,  success analysis,  nullity proceeding,  Invalidity proceeding

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]