"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

"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)."