Part C: Opposition – 1. Procedural Matters
* Page 21: The text has been updated with an indication that marks registered in Lithuania are published in colour as of July 2009.
* Page 38: The Office also accepts extracts from TMView for substantiation purposes. Accordingly, TMView has been added to the list of accepted databases.
* Page 38: An extract from CTM-ONLINE and a SITADEX could be used to substantiate an International Registration designating the EU and Spain, respectively. Since TMView also contains data from WIPO, TM View can also be used for this purpose.
* Page 38: This is just a reminder for the users that when SITADEX is used to substantiate an earlier mark sometimes it does not list the G&S of the earlier right, in such a case the opponent must file additional documents from an official source.
* Page 38: Since SITADEX does not show figurative marks in the same page where the details of the mark are shown, the image must be filed and this can be from SITADEX itself (which reproduces the image on a separate blank page) or from another official source (such as its publication on the official bulletin).
* Page 39: When English is the language of the proceedings, and as far as Portuguese trade marks are concerned, it should be noted that INPI also provides an English version of the Portuguese trade mark extract so, in principle, no translation would be necessary. However, as regards the list of goods and/or services, the extract itself only gives the class headings along with a warning indicating that this reference to the class heading does not necessarily reflect the goods and/or services protected under the trademark. In such cases, if the class heading does not correspond with the list of goods and/or services for which the mark is protected, the opponent must file the original list in Portuguese (from an official source) and an accurate translation into English.
* Page 42: Use of renewal certificates to substantiate earlier rights. The wording has been improved.
* Page 65: Apportionment of costs: the text has been clarified to reflect the current practice of the Office.
Part C: Opposition – 2.B. Comparison of goods and services
* Page 50: The practice of the Office as regards the comparison between any product and import/export services has been clarified: import/export services are dissimilar to any product.
* Page 52: The practice of the Office as regards the comparison between pharmaceuticals and cosmetics has been clarified: when the general categories are compared there is some similarity. However, when comparing specific pharmaceuticals they may be entirely dissimilar with cosmetics in general or specific cosmetics.”