The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services in Classes 30 and 35 of European Union trade mark application for the figurative mark
The applicant is represented by the team of IP Consulting.
The opposition is based on European Union trade mark application and French trade mark registration, both for the following figurative mark 
The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
According to Article 46(1)(a) EUTMR, within a period of three months following the publication of an EUTM application, notice of opposition may be given on the grounds that the trade mark may not be registered under Article 8.
In that relation, Article 8(2) EUTMR says that the legal basis of the opposition requires the existence and validity of an earlier right.
In the present case, the opponent withdrew one of the two trademarks on which the opposition is based on 11/08/2017. The Office confirmed the withdrawal on 08/11/2017. Thus, this EUTM is no longer valid. Consequently, it cannot constitute a valid trade mark on which the opposition can be based within the meaning of Article 46(1)(a) EUTMR and Article 8(2) EUTMR.
Moreover, the notice of the opposition was not accompanied by any evidence as regards the earlier French trade mark on which the opposition is based. Within the given time limit of two months, the opponent submitted an extract of the earlier French trade mark registration. But this extract was submitted without translation in English.
In accordance with Rule 19(4) EUTMIR this document cannot be taken into account.
CONCLUSION: Since the only two earlier rights on which the opposition is based have either ceased to exist or otherwise not been substantiated, the opposition must be rejected as unfounded.
