3 ms·

Honestly, this makes me more concerned: 1) On UK, France Germany data: are you saying that EU trademarks must be used throughout europe in order to be valid? S

Honestly, this makes me more concerned: 1) On UK, France Germany data: are you saying that EU trademarks must be used throughout europe in order to be valid? So supermac for example doesn't have a valid EU trademark because they operate only in ireland? 2) Self proclaimed numbers: I'm not aware of any reporting requirements for specific product lines. They're not reported for tax purposes.. just the overall company revenue/profits/etc. If McDonalds issued a regular report of revenue of each product line, that wouldn't satisfy the standard either, because that also comes from them. What independant authority could provide specific sales data for a company's product? Further, if I run a small business, does all of this mean I don't have a valid trademark? After all, who will vouch for my private small business sales of specific products. I understand these are the reasons stated... and that is why I would be concerned. I asked, how would a small business owner meet this standard of proof.. and in response, you just restated the unreasonable standard. So I'll ask again, what kind of evidence could be provided by a small business that would meet these standards? It appears that EUIPO has just set a standard that no small business could meet, and therefore has made it near impossible for small businesses to enforce their trademarks.

pjtr 8y ago
"OPPOSITION GUIDELINES Part 6 Proof of Use" http://euipo.europa.eu/en/mark/marque/pdf/part%206-EN.pdf http://euipo.europa.eu/en/mark/marque/pdf/part%206-EN.pdf Section II.5.2: "It is not necessary that the mark must be used everywhere in the Community. Genuineness of use may be found also when the mark has been used in only one part of the Community, such as in a single Member State or in a part thereof." Section II.9.1: "The use need not have been made throughout the period of five years, but rather within the five years." Section III.7.2: "The standard of proof The CTM Regulation requires proof of genuine use of the earlier mark. Therefore the evidence submitted by the opponent must consist of proof, i.e. substantial evidence that the mark has been put to genuine use. Making merely a prima facie case is not sufficient." There are many examples of sufficient and insufficient proof of use throughout the guidelines. One example: "759/1999 MERITENE / MERTINA (EN): the Opposition Division found that a catalogue presenting the goods, price lists for 2 years, labels and advertisements were insufficient evidence, since they did not contain any information on the extent of use. The Board of Appeal (R 743/1999-1) reversed this: the information contained in the catalogue (products offered on the market) and the price lists (sales conditions) gives a reliable indication of the extent of use of the mark." Another one: "694/2000 Buss / BOSS (DE): the opponent submitted an affidavit of the opponent’s manager and a series of undated labels and pages of catalogues. The Opposition Division regarded the proof of use as insufficient, in particular as regards the time and extent of use. The Board of Appeal confirmed this finding (R 643/2000-1)."

pjtr 8y ago

"OPPOSITION GUIDELINES Part 6 Proof of Use" http://euipo.europa.eu/en/mark/marque/pdf/part%206-EN.pdf http://euipo.europa.eu/en/mark/marque/pdf/part%206-EN.pdf Section II.5.2: "It is not necessary that the mark must be used everywhere in the Community. Genuineness of use may be found also when the mark has been used in only one part of the Community, such as in a single Member State or in a part thereof." Section II.9.1: "The use need not have been made throughout the period of five years, but rather within the five years." Section III.7.2: "The standard of proof The CTM Regulation requires proof of genuine use of the earlier mark. Therefore the evidence submitted by the opponent must consist of proof, i.e. substantial evidence that the mark has been put to genuine use. Making merely a prima facie case is not sufficient." There are many examples of sufficient and insufficient proof of use throughout the guidelines. One example: "759/1999 MERITENE / MERTINA (EN): the Opposition Division found that a catalogue presenting the goods, price lists for 2 years, labels and advertisements were insufficient evidence, since they did not contain any information on the extent of use. The Board of Appeal (R 743/1999-1) reversed this: the information contained in the catalogue (products offered on the market) and the price lists (sales conditions) gives a reliable indication of the extent of use of the mark." Another one: "694/2000 Buss / BOSS (DE): the opponent submitted an affidavit of the opponent’s manager and a series of undated labels and pages of catalogues. The Opposition Division regarded the proof of use as insufficient, in particular as regards the time and extent of use. The Board of Appeal confirmed this finding (R 643/2000-1)."