Priority Claim Validity Leads to Rejection of Trade Mark Opposition: ŠKODA vs. ŠKODA

The opposition was against all the goods and services listed under European Union trade mark ŠKODA, which is a figurative mark. The opposition was based on European Union trade mark registration ŠKODA, also a figurative mark, invoking Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

The decision was grounded on the admissibility criteria outlined in Article 46(1)(a) EUTMR, which necessitates that the opposition notice must be given within three months following the publication of an EU trade mark application. Moreover, a valid legal basis for an opposition requires the existence and validity of an earlier right. In this case, the contested application was filed on 26/11/2018, claiming priority based on Lebanese national trade mark application No 88 467, filed on 30/05/2018. The invoked European Union trade mark registration No 17 947 380 was filed on 27/08/2018 with a priority claim from Czech national trade mark No 550 087, dated 24/08/2018.

The opponent argued that the principle of triple identity was not met, specifically contesting the identity of the marks, the scope of the priority application, and discrepancies in the typeface and translation. However, the Opposition Division determined that the scope of protection conferred by the Lebanese national trade mark application No 88 467 was clear and reflected accurately on the certificate issued by the national authority. The arguments concerning the typeface, size, color, and use of the mark were dismissed as they do not affect the scope of protection of the sign.

For the purpose of assessing priority, the Division noted that insignificant differences, such as typeface variations or case sensitivity, do not affect the perception of the average consumer. The marks were considered identical, and the goods and services of the contested application were found to be either identically listed or covered by the broader categories of the Lebanese priority application.

Thus, the opposition was deemed inadmissible because the requirements under Article 34 EUTMR were satisfied, and the priority claim was valid.

EUIPO Case Law: OPPOSITION No B 3 079 698