Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA145349
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/12/2007
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91117598
`Plaintiff
`NOMEN INTERNATIONAL, S.A.
`NOMEN INTERNATIONAL, S.A.
`
`,
`
`MARK LEBOW
`YOUNG & THOMPSON
`745 SOUTH 23RD STREET
`ARLINGTON, VA 22202
`UNITED STATES
`mlebow@young-thompson.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Mark Lebow
`mlebow@young-thompson.com
`/Mark Lebow/
`06/12/2007
`2007-06-11 Response to Summary Judgment.pdf ( 9 pages )(47267 bytes )
`2007-06-06 Declaration of Marcel Batton.pdf ( 3 pages )(19512 bytes )
`EXHIBIT A.txt ( 1 page )(18 bytes )
`REDACTED Tiff Final.tif ( 91 pages )(4849398 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 75/731,861
`Published in the Official Gazette of December 6, 2005
`
`NOMEN INTERNATIONAL, S .A.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`Opposition No. ll7,598
`
`R. SAMUEL BIRGER,
`
`Applicant.
`
`RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Opposer, through counsel, subn1its the within Response to Applicant's Motion For
`
`Summary Judgment on Applicant's counterclaim for cancellation of U.S. Trademark Registration
`
`No. 2,380,302 (the '202 registration) for alleged abandonment or failure to initiate use of the '302
`
`registration.
`
`1.
`
`Summary
`
`To succeed on the Motion For Summary Judgment of Applicant's abandonment
`
`counterclaim, Applicant must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect
`
`to (l) Opposer's alleged non—use of the NOMEN trademark in the bona fide course of trade in the
`
`United State and, assuming such showing, (2) Opposer's alleged intent not to resume such use.
`
`Under applicable law governing what constitutes use, the subjective intent necessary for
`
`abandonment, and the summary judgment standard, Applicant cannot establish these two
`
`elements in light of documentary evidence and sworn statements submitted with this Response.
`
`

`
`II.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard
`
`The Board may not resolve any issue of material fact in deciding a summary judgment
`
`motion, rather, the Board may only determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist and
`
`should grant such motions only to avoid what would be a useless trial. No Fear, Inc., 54
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1551, 200 WL 390033 (T.T.A.B. 2000). In deciding a motion for summary
`
`judgment, the Board must resolve any doubt as to whether material factual issues exist in favor
`
`of the non—moving party and must view all inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts in
`
`the light most favorable to the non—moving party. Meyers v. Brooks Shoe, Inc., 912 F.2d 1459,
`
`16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (overruled on other grounds by A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L.
`
`Clzaides Const. Co., 960 F.3d 1020, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`III.
`
`Legal Standard of Use
`
`The federal definition of "use" of a mark is "the bona fide use of mark in the ordinary
`
`course of trade" and abandonment of a mark requires non—use with "intent not to resume such
`
`use." Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Applicant must prove two separate elements to
`
`successfully assert the defense of abandonment: (1) that Opposer ceased using the NOMEN
`
`mark; and (2) that Opposer did so with intent not to resume its use. See Cumulus Media, Inc. v.
`
`Clear Channel Comm., Inc., 304 F.3d 1167, 1174 (11"" Cir. 2002); Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc
`
`Group, Inc., 724 F.2d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir.1984); Emergency One, Inc. v. Am. FireEagle, Ltd.,
`
`228 F.3d 531, 535 (4th Cir.2000) (“[A] party claiming that a mark has been abandoned must
`
`show ‘non—use of the name by the legal owner and no intent by that person or entity to resume
`
`use in the reasonably foreseeable future.’ ”) (quoting Stetson v. Howard D. Wolf & Assocs., 955
`
`F.2d 847, 850 (2d Cir.1992)).
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`The second, intent—based element for abandonment requires proof of the subjective intent
`
`of the owner of the mark. The Lanham Act provides that such subjective intent may be "inferred
`
`from circumstances” and that a showing of three years of consecutive non—use creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption of intent not to resume use. 15 U.S.C. § 1127. However, these
`
`provisions do not eviscerate the requirement that abandonment may only be established upon a
`
`finding of both non—use and an intent not to resume use.
`
`Courts have readily found that even low level commercial use is sufficient to constitute
`
`"use" to preclude a finding of abandonment. See Cumulus Media (holding that continuous low
`
`level use on business cards and an office sign constituted "use" to prevent a finding of
`
`abandonment at the preliminary injunction stage.)
`
`The Board should note in particular with the present matter that NOMEN is use by
`
`Opposer as a service mark and that "a service mark is different from a mark for goods, especially
`
`in the manner it is used in commerce." Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc., 987 F.2d 766,
`
`768 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because service marks are used in connection with the offering and
`
`providing of services, rather than by placement directly on goods, courts have emphasized that
`
`advertising and promotional activities alone are sufficient to establish use of, and rights to, a
`
`service mark, in contrast to a mark for goods, where advertising and promotional activities alone
`
`may not be sufficient. See Id; Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. R.H. Cosmetics Corp., 204 USPQ
`
`155, 162 (TTAB 1979).
`
`The Board should note also with regard to Opposer's use of the NOMEN mark that it is
`
`used by Opposer not merely as a service mark but as a tradename. NOMEN appears in the
`
`corporate name of Opposer and each of Opposer's subsidiaries. Accordingly, any use of a
`
`NOMEN—based trade name for a business that conducts transactions in the U.S., or that is
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`promoted in U.S. by its trade name, necessarily constitutes use of the NOMEN mark in U.S.
`
`COl’1’1l’1’lCI'CC.
`
`IV.
`
`Ar gument
`
`Applicant's abandonment counterclaim rests entirely on the factual assertions that (l)
`
`Opposer ceased using the mark (or never began using the mark) and (2) Opposer had no intent to
`
`resume using the mark after the alleged non—use.
`
`The Board should note that Applicant is not asserting that Opposer was not entitled to
`
`registration for the NOMEN mark. The Lanham Act is clear that Opposer was entitled to
`
`register the NOMEN mark under Section 44(e) based on foreign registration, even without a
`
`showing of use in U.S. commerce. Opposer was duly granted U.S. Trademark Registration No.
`
`3,380,302 for NOMEN on August 29, 2000. Registration confers upon Opposer priority to
`
`NOMEN as of its filing date, March 5, 1998, which is long before any use or asserted use of
`
`NOMENON by Applicant.
`
`The fact that Opposer's mark in this proceeding is registered and that Opposer has
`
`priority, is a fundamental distinction with the First Niagra case repeatedly cited by Applicant.
`
`First Niagara Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1334 (TTAB 2005). In First Niagara, the opposer was a Canadian company attempting to
`
`establish rights to and priority of a confusingly similar mark such that the applicant could not
`
`obtain registration. However, the opposer in First Niagara did not own a trademark registration
`
`and was attempting to show ownership and priority to a common law trademark by use alone.
`
`The Board held that the opposer's Canada—based common law usage of its mark had not
`
`sufficiently penetrated U.S. commerce as to establish common law trademark rights in the U.S.
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment repeatedly quotes the statement from First
`
`Niagra that, "It is well established that prior use of a mark in a foreign country does not entitle
`
`its owner to claim exclusive rights in the United States as against one who used a similar mark in
`
`the United States prior to entry of the foreigner into the United State market." 77 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1334. However, Applicant neglects to point out that, in this case, Opposer's registration of the
`
`NOMEN mark provides Opposer with the constructive right to nationwide use of the NOMEN
`
`mark with priority extending back to the date of filing in 1998.
`
`a. Evidence of Use in the United States
`
`Opposer attaches hereto Exhibit 1, the sworn declaration of Marcel Botton, Managing
`
`Chairman of Opposer Nomen International, which includes Exhibits A—K.
`
`Mr. Botton states in his declaration that Nomen International S.A. is the parent
`
`corporation to a group of affiliate Nomen corporations including Nomen UK Ltd., Nomen
`
`France (formerly NOMEN Paris), and Nomen USA LLC. Each of these subsidiary corporations
`
`uses the Nomen mark with the permission and oversight of Nomen International and each has
`
`executed trademark licensing agreements with Nomen International.
`
`(‘][ 6, 7 & l4 Botton Dec.;
`
`Ex. A, B & I Botton Dec.)
`
`a.
`
`Invoices evidence use of NOMEN as a service mark and trade name in U.S.
`commerce
`
`Invoices dated 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 are attached to the Botton
`
`declaration as Exhibit F. These invoices represent Nomen group's commercial transactions with
`
`U.S. businesses. Some of these invoices represent the Nomen group billing U.S. businesses and
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`some represent bills to the Nomen group from U.S. business. In either case, all represent the use
`
`of the mark NOMEN as a trade name and service mark in U.S. commerce.
`
`The mere fact that corporations with trade names that include the NOMEN mar
`
`--
`
`"Nomen International S.A.," "Nomen UK Ltd." and "Nomen France," — billed, or were billed by,
`
`U.S. corporations during each of years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 precludes the
`
`possibility that the NOMEN mark ceased being used in trade in the United States during those
`
`years. Use of the NOMEN mark is established by use of the NOMEN mark in the trade names
`
`of these corporations.
`
`b.
`
`Partner ship with U.S. business and associated promotion and publicity
`evidences use of NOMEN as a service mark and trade name in U.S.
`commerce
`
`In the fall of 2001, Nomen approached a U.S. business based in Oakland, California
`
`known as Catchword to discuss a contemplated strategic and creative relationship.
`
`(‘][ 3 Alper
`
`Dec.; ‘J1 7 Botton Dec.) Catchword engages in naming and branding consulting services similar
`
`to those of the Nomen group.
`
`(‘][ 2 Alper Dec.) By March of 2002 an alliance between
`
`Catchword and the Nomen group had been created.
`
`(‘][ 4-6 Alper Dec.; ‘J1 8-10 Botton Dec.)
`
`A principal purpose and intent of the alliance was the disclosure, advertisement, and
`
`promotion of the availability of Nomen and Nomen's services in the United States.
`
`(‘][ ll Botton
`
`Dec.) This involved Catchword's disclosure, advertisement, and promotion of the partnership
`
`with Opposer, which of course entailed the use of the NOMEN mark because the mark is
`
`included in Opposer's trade name.
`
`As evidence of this activity, the Board is directed to Exhibit D to Mr. Botton's declaration
`
`and Exhibit A to Mr. Alper's declaration. Botton Exhibit D shows the NOMEN mark appearing
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`as Opposer's trade name on several different pages of Catchword's web site, in a Catchword
`
`press release, and in promotional documents downloadable from Catchword's website. The
`
`NOMEN service mark, as appearing in Opposer's trade name, was therefore used for
`
`promotional and marketing purposes by Catchword on behalf of Opposer in conjunction with
`
`Opposer's partnership with Catchword. Examination of the invoices noted in the section above
`
`shows that Catchword often billed
`
`In addition to the above, Catchword actively marketed and promoted to its U.S. clients
`
`and potential clients the services offered by Opposer, and in doing so used the NOMEN mark in
`
`U.S. commerce by referencing Opposer.
`
`(‘][ 8 & l0 Alper Dec.)
`
`Also included in Botton Exhibit D is an article published by the Oakland Tribune on
`
`March 5, 2002 announcing the alliance between Nomen and Catchword. This is clear
`
`recognition of the use of NOMEN as a tradename and service mark in U.S. commerce.
`
`d.
`
`Denis Ezingeard D/B/A Nomen International in the U.S. evidences use of
`NOMEN as a service mark and tradename in U.S. commerce
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the sworn declaration of Denis Ezingeard. Since 2005,
`
`Mr. Ezingeard has provided pharmaceutical naming services under the business name Nomen
`
`Healthcare pursuant to an independent contracting relationship with Nomen International.
`
`(‘][ 2-3
`
`Ezingeard Dec.) Beginning in 2005, he visited the United States on several occasions to provide
`
`these services and has done so doing business as Nomen Healthcare.
`
`(‘][ 4 Ezingeard Dec.) He
`
`has conduced workshops in pharmaceutical brand engineering in the U.S., has headed nan1ing /
`
`branding projects in the U.S., and has commercially engaged at least two U.S. clients, all under
`
`the business name Nomen Healthcare.
`
`(‘][ 5-7 Ezingeard Dec.) In connection with his
`
`commercial activities outlined above, Mr. Ezingeard has corresponded on at least hundreds of
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`occasions with businesses in the U.S. with emails that include in the letterhead the trade name
`
`Nomen International.
`
`(‘][ 8 Ezingeard Dec.)
`
`C.
`
`U.S. subsidiary evidences use of NOMEN as service mark and trade name in
`U.S. commerce
`
`In early 2007 Nomen International established a subsidiary in the United States, Nomen
`
`USA LLC, a New York corporation with an office in New York.
`
`(‘][ l4 Botton Dec.; EX G—J
`
`Botton Dec.) This U.S.—based business is the culmination of efforts by Opposer to establish and
`
`continually increase its presence in the U.S. commerce.
`
`V.
`
`Amendments to Discovery
`
`Opposer will be amending its discovery responses shortly after submission of this
`
`Response to reflect the information contained herein and submitted in response to Applicant's
`
`Motion.
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The above evidence establishes that Opposer never ceased using the NOMEN trademark
`
`in U.S. commerce and that, if Opposer is found to have ceased use in commerce, that Opposer
`
`had never intended not to resume use of the mark in commerce.
`
`June ll, 2007
`
`YOUNG & THOMPSON
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_/Mark LeboW/
`Mark Lebow
`
`Opposer's Attorney
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`745 South 23”‘ St.
`
`Arlington, VA 22202
`703-521-2297
`
`Fax 703-685-0573
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the undersigned deposited a true copy of the foregoing
`Opposer's Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment with the United States
`Postal Service as first class mail, postage prepaid, to
`
`William A. Bonk, III
`
`Emerging Strategies, PLLC
`5440 31“ Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 200l5— 1346
`
`June ll, 2007
`
`_/Mark LeboW/
`Mark Lebow
`
`Opposer's Response to
`Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`Opposition No. 117, 598
`
`

`
`SWORN DECLARATION OF MARCEL BOTTON
`
`Marcel Botton makes the following sworn declaration pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.20 in
`
`support of Opposer's Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and assertions set forth below in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Chairman of Nomen International S.A., a French Corporation located at 102 rue
`
`du Fauborg Saint— Honore 75008 Paris, France.
`
`3.
`
`I am the Managing Partner of Nomen USA LLC, a New York State lin1ited liability
`
`company and subsidiary of Nomen International S.A. located at 411 Theodore Fremd
`
`Ave., Suite 206 South Rye, N.Y. 10580.
`
`4.
`
`I have been employed at Nomen International S.A. since at least 2000.
`
`5. Nomen International S.A. is the parent corporation to a number of Nomen affiliates
`
`throughout the world that collectively market naming and branding services under the
`
`Nomen mark. These subsidiary corporations include, without lin1itation, Nomen UK
`
`Ltd., Nomen France, and Nomen USA LLC. Each of these subsidiaries has used the
`
`NOMEN mark with the knowledge, permission, and oversight of Nomen International
`
`S.A.
`
`6. Nomen International S.A. and Nomen UK Ltd. executed a franchise agreement on
`
`August 18, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes in Article 2a trademark
`
`license for the NOMEN mark.
`
`7. Nomen France, formerly known as Nomen Paris, executed a contract dated January 2,
`
`1989, which includes in clause 1 a license to the NOMEN mark. (Exhibit B)
`
`

`
`8.
`
`Nomen International S.A. approached Catchword, a business specializing in naming and
`
`branding consulting headquartered in Oakland, California, in approximately November of
`
`2001 regarding a possible partnership arrangement.
`
`An informal partnership was created between Nomen International S.A. and Catchword
`
`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`in approximately March of 2002.
`
`Nomen International S.A. and Catchword executed a formal partnering contract on
`
`February 14, 2005. (Exhibit C)
`
`Starting in the spring of 2002, Catchword included on its web site several references to
`
`Nomen International S.A. as being a strategic and creative partner of Catchword.
`
`Printouts of Catchword's web site and press releases disclosing the Nomen partnership
`
`are attached hereto as Exhibit D. A principal purpose of the disclosure was to advertise
`
`the availability of Nomen and its services to potential clients.
`
`The Oakland Tribune published an article on March 5, 2002 announcing the partnership
`
`between Nomen and Catchword. (Exhibit E)
`
`The Nomen group conducted business with several U.S. companies from 2000-2007.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit F are several invoices dated 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
`
`2006, and 2007. Each of these invoices is either to or from Nomen International S.A.,
`
`Nomen UK Ltd., or Nomen France. The invoices represent business transactions with
`
`five different companies from five different statess
`
`14.
`
`The Nomen established a United States subsidiary corporation, Nomen USA LLC, and
`
`affiliate office in New York State in February 2007. Nomen USA LLC is located at 411
`
`Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite 206 South Rye, N.Y. 10580. A New York State filing
`
`incorporation filing receipt and a New York Department of State entity information sheet
`
`

`
`are attached hereto as Exhibit G. Articles of incorporation for Nomen USA LLC are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit H. A Franchise Agreement between Nomen International S.A.
`
`and Nomen USA LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit I. This Agreement includes a license
`
`to Nomen USA LLC allowing use of the NOMEN mark. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is
`
`a press release dated April ll, 2007 from the Nomen group of affiliate announcing the
`
`launch of Nomen USA and an office based in New York.
`
`15. Opposer's Declaration of Use of Mark In Commerce under Section 8, submitted to the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 17, 2006 for the NOMEN mark and
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit K, along with the Notice of Acceptance from the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, is true and correct.
`
`16. Opposer has never ceased using the NOMEN mark in United States Commerce with
`
`intent not to resume such use. Rather, Nomen's intent has been to expand its presence in
`
`the United States as evidenced by its alliance with Catchword beginning in late 2001, its
`
`increasing commercial activity from 2000-2007, and the establishment of a Nomen
`
`subsidiary in the United States in 2007.
`
`I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States.
`
`Date:
`
`Denis Botton
`
`Executed version from this European declarent will be submitted separately
`
`

`
`*'.XH
`
`L
`
`

`
`LEGI MARK_fi
`7.JUN.2007 16:17
`N94035
`p,
`12/Q1
`
`
`
`
`vtsé POUR TIMBFIE ET Eunesus-I-as ASE?‘neg“
`REEEWE ?9EiE?.iEi‘.="i‘«.LE;‘ B63
`f
`£%3;:.r1*2s; ::.§aE°.§%%E%%.‘E.$ fisufifi
`DE ‘fit 4;/, ..... .. LE “-6-
`-~ ~
`-
`-
`~
`
`
`6"rucé;—QEnfw(;F";\:Jmi'Fl|l:
`F0
`-3-I""' BORD.--lS“3““'
`
`75875 PINS '..:Dt.« *3
`-
`‘
`'
`'
`.;z:é,
`;’,j;;§5_14,e2
`M
`_moeT1MBaE...9-.
`Dts D:ENREGt_'_._Q,,,,..»nA
`
`
`
`suaunuae :
`
`la société NOMEN INTERNATIONAL
`Siége social
`: 5, rue Firmin Gémier
`75018 PARIS
`représentée par son Président-Directeur Général,
`BOTTON, ayant tous pouvoirs a cat effet.
`
`Monsieur Marcel
`
`Ci-aprés
`
`dénommée
`
`“Le Franchiseur”
`
`Et
`
`1
`
`Mr Paul NORMAN
`
`A titre personnel et en tant que représentant de la future société
`NOMEN U.K.
`
`Ci-aprés
`
`dénommé
`
`“Le Franchisé”
`
`I1 a tout d'abo:d été expcsé ce qui suit
`
`.
`
`- Le Franchiseur a mis au point une méthodologie originals de
`création de marques, expérimentée dans un établissement
`— pilote de
`création et de conseil,
`la société NOMEN, constituée en 1985 et
`devenue depuis NOMEN INTERNATIONAL.
`
`— Le Franchisé a pu analyser la gestion de cet établissement pilots.
`
`- Le Franchiseur a répondu é toutes les questions du Franchisé sur le
`fonctionnement et la rentabilité d’un établissement exploitant la
`méthode originale miss an point par le Franchiseur.
`
`— Le Franchisé se déclare parfaitement informé des possibilités et
`des exigences de la méthode, et exprime le désir de bénéficier de
`l’expérience acquise par le Franchiseur.
`
`~ Le Franchisé prend 1’engagement de contribuer au hon renom de la
`marque NOMEN et de la méthodologie mise au point par le Franchiseur.
`
`le présent accord est destiné a réunir toutes les
`— En conséquence,
`conditions pour le succés de l’exploitation par le Franchisé d'un
`établissement lui appartenant at géré sous sa seule responsabilité,
`mais selon la méthode mise au point par le Franchiseur at afin
`d’obtenir ls meilleur chiffre d’affaires possible dans l’intérét des
`deux parties.
`
`répond aux régles du code de Déontologie
`jprésent contrat
`Le
`la Fédération Franqaise du Franchisage, ainsi qu’aux
`de
`conditions
`du Réglement Communautaire d’exemption n° 4087/88
`du 30 novembre 1988.
`Ceci étant exposé,
`i1 ea été décidé ce qui suit
`
`:
`
`35
`
`' ‘
`
`
`
`

`
`7.JUN.2007 16:17
`
`LEG1 MARK
`
`N!4U35
`
`P.
`
`13/21
`
`Le franohiseur reconnait a la sociéte NOMEN U.K.LTD,la qualité de
`franchise pour un établissement situé a : Londres/ANGLETERRE.
`Le Franchise s’engage a exploiter set etablissement a see risques et
`a son profit, mais en respectant la méthode qui lui est révélée.
`
`Le Franchiseur s’engage a ne pas accorder une autre franchise dans la
`zone suivante : Iles britanniques.
`
`.
`
`I
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`Q
`
`'
`
`— Le Franchiseur s’engage a ne pas prospecter la clientele
`potentielle (entreprises et prescripteurs) implantee dans la zone
`géographique concédée au Franchise.
`
`Si, a la suite d’une action promotionnelle du Franchiseur, des
`clients implantés dans la zone d'exclusivite du Franchise venaient a
`se manifester,
`le Franchiseur s’engage a les retransmettre
`intégralement au Franchise.
`
`Le Franchise s’interdit de prospecter ladite clientele en dehors de
`la zone qui lui est attribuée.
`
`— Le critére d'attribution a l’une ou l’autre des structures, est la
`localisation de l’interlocuteur principal, c'est—é-dire de la
`personne avec laquelle le dossier sera effectivement traité.
`
`~ Dans le cas de contacts intermédiaires (agences de publicité,
`conseils d’entreprisem)
`la localisation du prescripteur régit
`1'attribution de clientele ;
`le prescripteur se définit comme étant
`la personne qui a entamé auprés de l’une des parties une réelle
`démarche commerciale pour la recherche en question (demande de
`proposition écrite).
`
`— Les trois régles d’attribution de clientele définies ci-dessus ne
`s’appliquent pas lorsque le client final desire manifestement, et de
`maniére expresse, traiter avec une société particuliére.
`
`~ Tous les autres cas d'attribution de clientele non traités dans ce
`contrat seront arbitrés par le Franchiseur.
`
`Le Eranchiseur accords au Franchise le droit d’usage s titre
`d’enseigne de la marque NOMEN avec tous ses attributs (sigles,
`slogans, enseigne) déposée a Paris,
`le 7 mai 1982 sous le
`n° 1203578 et ayant donné lieu a extension dans les pays suivants
`RFA, BNX, USA, ESP, ROYAUME-UNI,
`ITALIE, etc...
`
`Le Franchiseur accorde également au Franchise le droit d'intégrer la
`marque NOMEN dans sa denomination ou sa raison sociale. Cette
`autorisation prendra fin a 1'expiration du present contrat,
`comma il
`est dit a l’article 10 ciwaprés.
`
`bx.
`
`2
`
`'MC)lV\Cl/\.
`
`

`
`/.JUN.200/ 1611/
`
`Ltfil MARK
`
`N“408b
`
`P.
`
`14/21
`
`I1 garantit au franchise la jouissance paisible de la marque NOMEN et
`la défendra contre toute usurpation intervenant
`dans la zone
`d’exolusivité définie a 1'article 1.
`
`Le Franchiseur fournira au Franchise la charte graphique NOMEN qui
`sera utilisée selon les indications du Franchiseur aux frais du
`Franchise.
`
`Outre les services déja effectués cu décrits dans les articles
`précédents,
`le Franchiseur s’engage a fournir au Franchise les
`services suivants :
`
`a) Formation professionnelle du Franchise par un stage de 2 a 4 mois
`avant
`l’ouverture de l’établissement du Franchise.
`
`b) Constante possibilité pour le Franchisé de béneficier de
`l'assistance et du savoir—faire du Franchiseur.
`
`c) Assistance technique constants, notamment par la communication de
`toutes technique de traitement des informations, de gestion ou de
`vents mises en oeuvre dans les établissements pilotes des qu'elles
`auront été suffisamment expérimentées pour étre généralisées, at par
`l'accés aux logiciels, bases de données, etcm
`
`Les outils techniques mis a disposition du Franchise resteront la
`propriété du Franchiseur qui pourra en demander la restitution a la
`fin du contrat, sans préavis ni mise en demeure, aux frais du
`Franchise.
`
`d) Assistance comptable pour permettre an Franchise une organisation
`fiable de 1’enregistrement comptable de ses opérations.
`
`e) Accés au club NOMN qui regroupe tous les dirigeants des
`établissements franchises et constitue une structure de concertation
`et de réflexion pour 1’échange des expériences et la maximisation des
`résultats de la methode NOMEN.
`
`a) En raison de sa qualité de commercant indépendant, qu'i1 devra
`toujours indiquer aux tiers par une signalisation adequate, 1e
`Franchise sera tenu de toutes les obligations propres a tout
`Commercafltr at ne Saurait par consequent prétendre a une
`participation quelconque du Franchiseur aux frais ou dépenses engages
`pour le fonctionnement de son entreprise.
`
`11 est expressément convenu que le franchisé s'engagera Saul 5
`l’égard de sa clientele et que dans le cas cu l'un de ses clients
`viendrait a rechercher la responsabilité du franchiseur,
`le franchise
`serait tenu de prendre immédiatement les lieu et place du franchiseur
`dans touts contestation cu procedure et en tout cas de le garantir
`C0ntr€
`t0Ute Condamnation pouvant intervenir de ce chef.
`
`W
`
`(*PMi§K/\Q/\3
`
`

`
`:-'."~~
`
`7 JUN.2007 16:17
`.
`Q
`
`LEG1 MARK
`
`N94085
`
`P.
`
`15/21
`
`b) Le franchisé devra, en raison du present contrat et de son
`appartenance au reseau de franchise NOMN, assumer strictement
`chacune des obligations suivantes
`
`. assurer a la clientele un service de qualité, conforme aux
`normes de la méthode NOMEN,
`telles qu'elles seront modifiées
`pour tenir compte de l’amélioration constante du service rendu.
`
`. veiller a la conservation du prestige de l'enseigne NOMEN qui
`lui est confiée et
`qui doit étre pour le public un standard de
`traitement technique de qualité, et en consequence :
`
`— veiller au parfait état de ses locaux en se conformant
`1'image de marque et a l'agencement que le franchiseur
`déciderait pour tous les franchises du réseau NOMEN.
`
`e
`
`- veiller a ce que sa reputation commercials ne soit jamais
`suspectée.
`
`- utiliser la marque NOMEN dans les conditions prévues par la
`charte graphique.
`
`tenir sa comptabilité salon le plan comptable défini par le
`.
`franchiseur dans les limites de la réglementation nationale, et
`donner a tout instant libre acces é cette comptabilité au
`franchiseur at a ses conseils ou experts.
`
`.
`
`informer le franchiseur des contrefacons des droits de
`
`propriété industrielle ou intellectuelle licenciés, et intenter
`une action contre les contrefacteurs avec l’assistance du
`franchiseur et a la charge de ce dernier.
`
`(environ 40 heures
`. exploiter son établissement a plain temps
`par semaine, au minimum) et s’interdire toute autre fonction
`rémunérée dans le meme domaine d’activité, sauf autorisation
`préalable et expresse du franchiseur.
`
`Le franchise devra verser en vertu du present contrat
`
`:
`
`— un droit d’entrée de zéro francs payable en une seule fois a la
`signature des présentes, et de facon irrevocable,
`
`— une redevance mensuelle de 10 % du chiffre d’affaires encaissé hora
`taxe.
`
`Cette redevance est payable au plus tard le 15 du mois suivant,
`accompagnée d’un ralevé établi par le franchise indiquant a la fois
`le montant détaillé des recettes et des sommes facturées (nom du
`client, numéro de facture, montant, caractére d’acompte on solde).
`
`Le franchise s'engage a verser au franchiseur une redevance annuelle
`minimale de 30 000 francs hors taxe, 1'année s’entendant de l'année
`
`We
`
`D\\\m\/0/‘A
`
`

`
`7.JUN.2007 16:17
`
`LEGI MARK
`
`N94085
`
`P.
`
`16/21
`
`civile 3 compter de l'année 1996.
`
`Si le montant cumulé des redevances mensuelles versées au cours de
`1’année est inférieur au montant ci—dessus, 1e franchisé devra verse:
`1e solde an franchiseur au plus tard le 15 du mois de janvier de
`l'année suivante.
`
`Le principe de la redsvance annuelle minimale ne s'app1iquera qu’é
`partir du 13éme mois d’activité.
`
`Le montant de la redevance annuslle minimale sera calculé au prorata
`temporis, pour la premiére et la derniére année.
`
`Les engagements stipulés ci-dessus sont les seules obligations
`financiéres du franchisé.
`
`Les services de conseils prévus a 1’artic1e 3, paragraphs d) étant
`facturé 5 la vacation a raison de la nature du travail fourni et de
`la difficulté du probléme a résoudre, mais le franchisé n’ayant pas
`l’obligation de recourir a ces services.
`
`l’accés au Club NOMEN et la participation a ses activités
`De méme.
`n'entra1nent aucun frais, en dehors des frais de déplacement et de
`séjour du franchisé, qui restent a sa charge.
`
`Le présent contrat est conclu pour une durée de 4 ans a compter de la
`signature des présentes.
`.
`
`Il se renouvellera ensuite par tacite reconduction de deux ans en
`deux ans, sauf dénonciation par l’une on l’autre des parties par
`lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception, six mois au moins avant
`la fin de la période en cours.
`
`a) Qansss :
`
`Le présent contrat sera rompu avant son terme dans les hypothéses
`suivantes :
`
`. A.1'initiative du franchiseur, huit jours aprés une mise en
`demeure restée infructueuse effectuée par lettre recommandée avec
`accusé de réception adressée au franchisé, a la suite de non—paiement
`a son échéance de la redevance stipulée ci—dessus a 1'article 5, on
`d’une somme due a la suite de conseils demandés dans le cadre de
`1’article 3, paragraphs d).
`
`. dans le cas d'inobservation de 1'une des clauses contractuelles
`importantes, huit jours aprés mise en demeure restée infructueuse
`faite par lettre recommandés avec accusé de réception par celle des
`parties se réclamant de cette inobservation.
`
`dans le cas de cession entre vifs ou transmission pour cause de
`mort, déplacement, mise en gérance, apport en société, du fonds de
`commerce du franchisé, sauf si la franchiseur agrée le nouvel
`
`05/
`
`5
`
`QMNMA
`
`

`
`,_ 7.JUN.2007 16:18
`
`LEG] MARK
`
`W085
`
`’P-
`
`17/21
`
`
`
`expioitant, ce é quoi il n'est jamais obligé.
`
`. dans le cas de ohangement de majorité au sein du capital du
`
`agree
`le franchise est une personne morale, sauf si la franchiseur
`le nouveau partenaire ou le nouveau dirigeant, ce a quoi il n'est
`
`incapacité
`. dans le cas de redressement ou liquidation judiciaires,
`ou interdiction du franchise, ou de toute situation analogue dans le
`territoire du franchise.
`
`b) Qnnségusnsss :
`
`la resiliation du
`Dans tous les cas visés au paragraphs a) ci—dessus,
`contrat,
`lorsqu'elle est le fait du franchise, entrainera a sa
`charge, en raison de l’avantage concurrentiel dont bénéficie son
`établissement qui a profité du savoir-faire du franchiseur et de la
`caution de la marque NOMEN,
`l’interdiction pendant une période d'un
`an :
`
`ou
`- de s’affilier, d'adhérer, de participer, directement
`indirectement a une organisation comparable a celle du réseau NOMN,
`c’est-a—dire ayant une activité en rapport avec la marque, dans le
`territoire désigné au present contrat,
`
`— de représenter ou d’exploiter dire