Subject: RE: TCF-101871-VE-O - SPN will not pursue - "Bubble" dv (red) w/MAGGI & PASTAROMA w/"Pasta" dv (col) // Plate and vegetables device in color (class 30) Opposition dismissed (but trademark still refused ex officio) - V
From: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>
To: Ballaman Campillo,Céline,CH-Vevey<[email-masked]>
Cc: BrandIP.Conflict <[email-masked]>, "Application, FC-LEGAL GED Memotech" <[email-masked]>,Bačković,Jelena,CH-Vevey<[email-masked]>, Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]>, Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]>, Annette Angulo <[email-masked]>, Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>, Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:26:17 +0000

Dear Céline,

Thank you very much for your comments in the previous email. Accordingly, we will close this matter.

Kind regards,

________________________________
De: Ballaman Campillo,Céline,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]>
Enviado: jueves, 4 de junio de 2026 04:55
Para: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>
Cc: BrandIP.Conflict <[email-masked]>; Application, FC-LEGAL GED Memotech <[email-masked]>; Bačković,Jelena,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]>
Asunto: TCF-101871-VE-O - SPN will not pursue - "Bubble" dv (red) w/MAGGI & PASTAROMA w/"Pasta" dv (col) // Plate and vegetables device in color (class 30) Opposition dismissed (but trademark still refused ex officio) - V

Dear Hillmer,

Thanks for your below email.

While we understand your assessment, kindly note that we have decided not to pursue this matter and will close our corresponding record.

In the future, we would appreciate if you could share more context when sharing information. Indeed, we understand that this opposition was filed because Inversiones Plan Zhen C.A. filed several trademark closely resembling our rights. The subject trademark alone would not have been opposed by us if Inversiones did not file the following trademarks:

Please also remember to copy our GED mailbox whenever you contact us to allow automatic storage of the correspondence in our systems. Lastly, our mailbox BrandIP.Filing is only used for Filing & Prosecution.

Kind regards,

Céline

Scheduled absences:
26 June-05 July

Reminder: subject line must be structured that way:

SPN ref – Updated short summary of email content - Due date for response (if any) - Trademark vs. Third Party Trademark – Name of the Third Party

________________________________
From: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2026 16:43
To: Ballaman Campillo,Céline,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]>
Cc: BrandIP.Conflict <[email-masked]>; Application, BrandIP.Filing <[email-masked]>; Bačković,Jelena,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]>; lhenriquez <[email-masked]>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]>
Subject: TCF-101871 - Venezuela - Opposition dismissed (but trademark still refused ex officio) - Vegetables Plate vs. Maggi - DL June 9, 2026

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER. BE CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments.
________________________________
Dear Sirs,

We would like to inform you that a decision has been issued regarding the opposition filed against following trademark application:

  *
Mark:
  *
Appl No. 2020-006871
  *
Class: 30
  *
Applicant: Inversiones Plan Zhen C.A.
  *
Your ref. TCF-101871

This opposition was based on registration   No. P326255 in Class 30.

In this regard, the Trademark Office has decided to dismiss our opposition. However, it has nonetheless refused the application ex officio on the grounds of descriptiveness.

Enclosed, you will find this decision for your records.
This decision lacks substantive reasoning regarding the grounds for dismissing the opposition. In recent months, the Trademark Office has been working through a backlog of decisions; unfortunately, many rulings are being issued in a list format without further justification beyond stating whether the opposition is sustained or dismissed based on compliance with the Law.
While the refusal is a practical victory for SPN (because the application was denied anyway), the dismissal of our opposition poses a procedural risk. Should the applicant (Inversiones Plan Zhen C.A.) appeal the refusal and we remain silent, we would be effectively accepting the dismissal and lose our standing in the proceedings to further contest the mark if the refusal is eventually overturned.
Our Assessment
If Nestlé is still interested in this matter, it is advisable to appeal this decision within the applicable legal timeframe in order to ratify the arguments set forth in the initial opposition. We would then monitor the case to determine whether Inversiones Plan Zhen C.A. appeals the refusal of their trademark. Should they fail to do so, we could consider withdrawing our appeal to ensure that the case remains closed and that the refusal of the mark   becomes final and binding.

In any event, considering the similarities between the marks involved and the current criteria of the Trademark Office, which tend toward the granting of registrations and coexistence unless there are almost identical similarities, we estimate that the chances of the opposition being upheld are moderate to low (approximately 40%).

Deadline
The deadline to appeal this decision expires on June 9, 2026.
We look forward to hearing your instructions.

Best regards,